9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Independent power of a specially empowered officer under the COFEPOSA Act to revoke a detention order. 2. Binding nature of observations in Amir Shad Khan regarding the power of revocation by a specially empowered officer. 3. Compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) in the context of revocation decisions by the specially empowered officer. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Independent Power of a Specially Empowered Officer under the COFEPOSA Act to Revoke a Detention Order The court examined whether a specially empowered officer under the COFEPOSA Act has the independent power to revoke a detention order in light of Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The court concluded that the answer is affirmative. It highlighted that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which applies to the COFEPOSA Act, provides that the power to issue or make an order includes the power to amend, vary, or rescind the order. This power is explicitly preserved by the opening words of Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act. Furthermore, Article 22(5) of the Constitution, read with Article 367, implies that the authority making the order of detention also has the power to revoke or modify it. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Ibrahim Bachu Bafan and Amir Shad Khan, which supported this interpretation, despite the contrary view in Sushila Mafatlal Shah. Issue 2: Binding Nature of Observations in Amir Shad Khan The court addressed whether the observations in Amir Shad Khan regarding the power of revocation by a specially empowered officer are binding. The court affirmed that these observations are binding. It noted that any declaration of law by the Supreme Court, even if not applied in the case, is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the declarations in Amir Shad Khan and Ibrahim Bachu Bafan, being from larger benches, outweigh the contrary observations in Sushila Mafatlal Shah. The court also discussed the principle that when confronted with conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Court must follow the one with better reasoning, even if it involves an uncomfortable task of choosing between them. Issue 3: Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards under Article 22(5) The court examined whether the failure of a specially empowered officer to take an independent decision on the revocation of a detention order, and merely forwarding the representation with a recommendation to reject, results in non-compliance with the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5). The court answered this in the negative. It noted that under the COFEPOSA Act, the State Government or the Central Government are also appropriate authorities for considering the representation. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Sat Pal and Raj Kishore Prasad, which held that if the representation is considered by an appropriate authority, the failure of the detaining officer to decide it is not fatal. The court emphasized the need to look at the substance of the matter and not act on mere technicality, aligning with the pragmatic approach suggested in Prakash Chandra Mehta and Pratap Singh. Conclusion: The court concluded that: 1. The specially empowered officer under the COFEPOSA Act has the independent power to revoke a detention order. 2. The observations in Amir Shad Khan regarding the power of revocation by such an officer are binding. 3. The failure of the detaining officer to take an independent decision, if the representation is considered by an appropriate authority, does not result in non-compliance with Article 22(5). The writ petition was directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench for final disposal on other questions involved.
|
