CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34022 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 23 & Ors. v. State of Punjab). Crl. Misc. No. M-34022 of 2008 In Surjan Singh’s

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. (Oral) Crl. Misc. Nos. 60028 & 60029 of 2008 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-34022 of 2008 An earlier plea (Crl. Misc. No. M-37094 of 2007) filed by the petitioner came to be allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Surya Kant, J.) on 15.11.2007 by passing the following order:- “This petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated February 22, 2007 passed in Crl. W.P. No. 1179 of 2006 (Surjan Singh vs. State of Punjab). Crl. Misc. No. M-34022 of 2008 2 In Surjan Singh’s case (supra), the Bench noticed that though the judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No.839 of 2004 (Ekka Ram Vs. State of Punjab etc.) had been appealed against, there was an urgency in the disposal of the relevant pending cases because if the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court [in Ekka Ram’s case (supra)] was approved by the Apex Court at a later date, the petitioners might have completed the entire period of sentence awarded to them in the meantime.

That would have rendered the petitions infructuous. It was in the light thereof that the following conditional order was passed by the Single Judge in this case: “(i) Before releasing the petitioner, the concerned Superintendent of Jail will verify the period undergone by the convict and the remissions granted under Article 161 of the Constitution of India and that if after subtracting the period on parole, the convict has undergone the sentence awarded by the Court, he shall be released temporarily on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Punjab in case Ekka Ram [SLP (Crl.) No. 2496 of 2006] arising from the final judgment and order dated 14.09.2005 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 839 of 2004. The convict concerned will be granted the benefit of remission as per the circulars issued by Government of Punjab under Article 161, after his conviction.

Crl. Misc. No. M-34022 of 2008 3 (ii) The petitioner will remain on bail during the pendency of S.L.P. No. 2496 of 2006 in Hon’ble Supreme Court. If as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, benefit of remissions under Article 161 is not granted, the convict will surrender back in jail for undergoing the unexpired period of sentence. (iii) At the time of release on bail, the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and will keep peace and will continue informing the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned his residential address from time to time.” The grievance of the petitioner – prisoner is that the Competent Authority has not complied with the orders passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-37094 of 2007 in view of an administrative order dated 28.06.2006 which had been issued by the Director General of Prison, Haryana, directing all the Superintendent of Jails in the State of Haryana to refrain from releasing the convicts under the N.D.P.S. Act in view of the embargo created by the provisions of Section 32-A of the N.D.P.S. Act.

The precise grievance is that an administrative order cannot be allowed to set at naught a judicial order passed by this Court. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Crl. Misc. No. M-34022 of 2008 4 There can be no dispute with the proposition that an administrative order, issued at whatever level, cannot be said to be valid enough to set at naught an order passed by this Court on the judicial side. Once the conditional release of the petitioner had been ordered by a Single Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-37094 of 2007, the implementation of the order could be denied or deferred only on the basis of an order passed by the Apex Court. Concededly, the order dated 15.11.2007 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court has not been appealed against till date. In that view of things, it is illogical for all concerned to deny the implementation of that judicial order.

The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly with a direction to the respondents (all of them) to implement the order dated 15.11.2007 passed by a Coordinate Bench in Crl. Misc. No. M- 37094 of 2007 forthwith. Any delay on their part in implementing that order would invite a contempt charge. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the Competent Authority. This order shall be FAXED to the respondent no.3 for compliance. Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary. December 23, 2008 ( S.D. Anand) Judge