TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction (2) of Section 2 SAFEMA had no application to the facts of the case as held by the High Court. To that extent the judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is set aside. According to learned counsel for appellants position has been settled beyond doubt that it is impermissible in view of what has been stated in Attorney General’s case [1994 (5) TMI 235 - SUPREME COURT] . This submission deserves no serious consideration, being one made in disregard of the view taken already by this Court. We find that the effect of said decision was considered in the two decisions relied upon by learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. The view taken in Amritlal Chandmal Jain’s case (1998 (4) TMI 530 - SUPREME COURT) and Karimaben K. Bagad’s case (1998 (7) TMI 680 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) does not call for any further or fresh look or consideration – the same being not only just and reasonable but quite in conformity with the basic tenets of Rule of Law but commends for our respectful acceptance, as well - Appeal allowed - remit the matter back to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits as to the legality and validity of the orders of detention, for the purpose of applyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng forfeiture was challenged on merits before the Tribunal constituted under the SAFEMA. Thereafter writ petitions were filed on 23.11.1995 challenging the orders of detention and also challenging the order of forfeiture. The latter additional challenge was by way of amendment. By the impugned judgment dated 13.6.1996 the High Court passed the impugned order in each case. Learned senior counsel, for the Union of India further submitted that the Tribunal did not consider that first proviso has no application to the facts of the case. The order of detention was not revoked under Section 8 of SAFEMA but on the contrary under Section 11(1)(b) thereof. There was no revocation before receipt of the report of the Advisory Board or before making reference to the Advisory Board. Since the proceedings were initiated when the order of detention was in force, and were brought to the logical end by passing the order under Section 7 of SAFEMA, no illegality existed. It is further submitted that it was not open to the respondents to question legality of the order of detention in the subsequent writ petition after the first writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. Rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r v. Dr. K. Santhakumari (2001 (5) SCC 60). In para 12 of Central Council s case (supra) it as observed as follows: "In the instant case, the selection was made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Committee must have considered all relevant facts including the inter se merit and ability of the candidates and prepared the select list on that basis. The respondent, though senior in comparison to other candidates, secured a lower place in the select list, evidently because the principle of "merit-cum-seniority" had been applied by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The respondent has no grievance that there were any mala fides on the part of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The only contention urged by the respondent is that the Departmental Promotion Committee did not follow the principle of "seniority-cum-fitness". In the High Court, the appellants herein failed to point out that the promotion is in respect of a "selection post" and the principle to be applied is "merit-cum-seniority". Had the appellants pointed out the true position, the learned Single Judge would not have granted relief in favour of the respondent. If the learned counsel has made an adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of the Advisory Board under Section 8 of the said Act or before the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board or before making a reference to the Advisory Board; or (ii) such order of detention, being an order to which the provisions of Section 9 or section 12A of the said Act do not apply, has not been revoked before the expiry of time for, or on the basis of the review under subsection (3) of Section 9, or on the report of the Advisory Board under Section 8, read with sub-section (2) of Section 9, of the said Act; or (iii) such order of detention, being an order to which the provisions of Section 9 or section 12A of the said Act do not apply, has not been revoked before the expiry of time for, or on the basis of, the first review under sub-section (3) of that Section, or on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board under Section 8, read with sub-section (6) of Section 12A, of that Act; or (iv) such order of detention has not been set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.: The first sub-clause of proviso to clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 2 deals with three situations, when the exceptions provided by the proviso can operate. When the order of detent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch revocation when is done by the Central Government as in this case is really unrelated to a report of the Advisory Board. On the factual position, none of the three situations indicated in the first sub-clause of the said proviso are applicable. The inevitable position is, therefore, crystal clear that the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 2 SAFEMA had no application to the facts of the case as held by the High Court. To that extent the judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is set aside. That brings us to the residual question as to whether the order of detention could be challenged subsequent to the disposal of the earlier writ petition on the ground that it had become unfructuous. According to learned counsel for appellants position has been settled beyond doubt that it is impermissible in view of what has been stated in Attorney General s case. This submission deserves no serious consideration, being one made in disregard of the view taken already by this Court. We find that the effect of said decision was considered in the two decisions relied upon by learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. The view taken in Amritlal Chandmal Jain s case ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
