TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the detaining authority in order to enable it to consider whether, an order of detention could be passed against the petitioner despite that opinion especially when, one of the grounds on which the two orders of detention are based is identical and relates to the same incident. We would like to add that having seen the original order of detention which was made available for our inspection by the officers of the State Government, we were baffled to find that though Shri Capoor's signature bears the date October 8, 1981, the column for date, in the left hand corner at the bottom of the order of detention, has remained or become blank. set aside the order of detention dated November 7, 1981 passed against the petitioner by the Government of Maharashtra and direct that to the extent that his detention is attributable to the said order of detention, he shall be released forthwith - Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1369 of 1982 - - - Dated:- 31-3-1983 - CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. (CJ), MISRA RANGNATH, TULZAPURKAR, V.D., REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA AND VARADARAJAN, A., JJ. Ram Jethamalani and Miss Rani Jethmalani for the Petitioner O.P. Rana and Mr. M.N. Shroff , K.G. Bhagat, Addl. Sol. G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mely, the ground mentioned in paragraph 1.1 of the grounds furnished to the detenu requires consideration by us. This petition along with a few other petitions was referred to the Constitution Bench for considering the validity of sections 5-A and 11 of the Act. We have already set out the purport of section 5-A. Section 11, which authorises the revocation of detention orders, provides by sub-section 2 that the revocation of a detention order shall not bar the making of another order under section 3 against the same person. In view of the conclusion which we have reached in this petition, it is unnecessary to consider the validity of these sections. The surviving ground of detention contains the allegation that, working on a secret information received on January 13, 1981, the officers of the Marine and Preventive Wing of the Collectorate of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, intercepted a vessel named 'Manek Prasad' in the sea off World' at Bombay on February 2, 1981 at about 2 p.m. and seized therefrom wrist-watches valued at ₹ 18, 89, 935/-, textiles valued at ₹ 18, 20 675, miscellaneous goods valued at ₹ 18, 769 - and Indian currency of ₹ 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case. The opinion of the Advisory Board that there was no sufficient cause for Shamsi's detention may not have been binding on the detaining authority which ordered the detention of the petitioner but, it cannot be gainsaid that the fact the Advisory Board had recorded such an opinion on identical facts involving a common ground was at least a relevant circumstance which ought to have been placed before the detaining authority in this case. Since three out of the four grounds on which the petitioner was detained have been held to be bad by the High Court, we have to proceed on the basis that the petitioner was detained and could validly be detained on the remaining ground only. That ground is similar to one of the grounds on which Shamsi was detained, the transaction being one and the same, as also the incident on which the two orders of detention are based. That is why the opinion of the Advisory Board in Shamsi's case becomes relevant in the petitioner's case. The failure of the State Government to place before the detaining authority in the instant case, the opinion which the Advisory Board had recorded in favour of a detenu who was detained partly on a ground rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner now rests, in addition to something more, was not sustained by the Advisory Board in Shamsi's case. We cannot exclude a reasonable probability that since the Advisory Board had not sustained Shamsi's detention on a ground which was common to him and the petitioner, namely, ground No. 1, the detaining authority would have, if at all, passed the order of detention against the petitioner on the remaining three grounds only. Those three grounds have been held to be bad by the High Court and it is only by resorting to the provisions of section 5A of the Act that the High Court upheld the detention of the petitioner. Shri D.N. Capoor, Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Law and Order), has filed a counter-affidavit in this Court in answer to the Writ Petition. In paragraph 14 of the said affidavit, Shri Capoor says that he had ordered to issue detention order on 8.10.1981 , after considering the entire material very carefully. Shri Capoor says that he formulated the grounds of detention contemporaneously on 8.10.1981, that thereafter the order of detention and the grounds of detention were got typed and the Customs authorities were direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
