K.S. Bhalla, J.
1. Petitioner Gurdev Singh was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated 26.10.1987 issued by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, who is respondent No. 2, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detention is based on a couple of incidents resulting in security proceedings against the petitioner and case FIR No. 79 dated 7.7.1987 with regard to harbouring of terrorists as mentioned in the grounds on which the detention order was based which have been reproduced in para 3 of the petition. The latest incident is one on which above said FIR dated 7.7.1987 was based.
2. Admittedly the order of detention has been correctly reproduced in para No. 2 of the petition and it discloses that the petitioner was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of State.
3. District Magistrate has clearly mentioned in his above said order that he had satisfied himself with regard thereto and the order was made with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner so prejudicial. However, from the material placed before me I find that perhaps there was no application of mind by the authority making the detention order and the same appears to have been made just in a mechanical manner. Possibly that is why the same admittedly had to be modified just after four days i.e. on 30th October, 1987. Nonapplication of the mind by the authority concerned is obvious from the fact that true facts were never revealed to it nor the said authority at the initial stage tried to verify the same. It is said in the detention order by the District Magistrate that he was aware that at the time of making of the order the detainee was confined in District Jail, Nabha, which was completely wrong. On 30th of October, 1987, the order was modified accepting that petitioner was not confined in District Jail, Nabha and in fact had been released on bail. It is not a case in which the petitioner was released on bail after the making of the order i.e. between 26th and 30th October, 1987, when Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana brought that fact to the notice of the District Magistrate concerned. On the other hand the petitioner was released on bail since July, 1987. If the activities of the petitioner were really objectionable to the extent that they were considered prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of State, they could never remained unnoticed by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana the authority who passed the order of detention and still less by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. The fact that the liberty of the petitioner remained unnoticed all along for more than three months and he was considered to be lodged in District Jail, Nabha, by itself, is sufficient to indicate that petitioner''s activities were not such which called for such drastic action by way of prevention. All this points out total absence of application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the order of detention and it appears to have acted every time by way of endorsement to what was suggested by the local police in a mechanical manner.
4. The detention under National Security Act admittedly is a preventive measure and the same cannot be exercised as a punitive measure. If we refer to the various instances on which the order of detention has been based they are stale enough and it cannot be said that on their account a preventive action was called for on 26.10.1987. In other words there was no immediate or imminent reason for coming to such conclusion. The first incident is more than three and half years old. It occurred on 13.4.1984 and only proceedings under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were taken against the petitioner. The second is more than one year old being dated 14.8.1986 and in this respect as well only security proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were taken. The third and fourth incidents are also about one year old being dated 29.10.1986 and 19.11.1986 respectively. They also form basis of security proceedings. None of these proceedings could have legally subsisted at the time of the making of the detention order and the petitioner must have been discharged in all these cases by then as alleged by him which fact has not been specifically controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. With regard to the 5th incident no action was taken against the respondent. The 6th incident became the basis of FIR No. 79 dated 7.7.1987 and in that case petitioner was released on bail in the month of July, 1987 itself. He was at large for three months thereafter before the making of the detention order and absence of any incident during that period by itself to my mind is sufficient to negative the alleged prejudicial activities. For that reason it cannot be said to be a fit case to resort to preventive detention and the petitioner is also entitled to succeed on said short ground.
5. As already discussed above, none of the alleged incidents can be treated to be serious enough to take resort to preventive detention under National Security Act. They are all ordinary incidents relating to law and order and discharge of the petitioner in various security proceedings indicates that they could neither be substantiated. Such incidents cannot possibly be treated as basis for preventive action, as by those a person cannot be said to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of State. In none of suggested incidents security of State can be said to have been involved. For said reason, as well, the detention order cannot be possibly sustained.
6. To sum up, I hold that there was clear nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority with regard to the activities of the petitioner at the relevant time and the earlier activities, if any, were not sufficient enough to form basis of preventive detention. In the result, the order of detention dated 26.10.1987 is set aside, the writ petition is allowed to that extent and petitioner Gurdev Singh is ordered to be released forthwith unless he is wanted in any other case.
