TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on challenging the order of detention passed against him under Section 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act 1974. The order is challenged on three grounds, namely, (1) there was delay in passing the detention order (2) there was delay in execution of the detention order and (3) a copy of the written proposal made by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority was not supplied to the petitioner. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absconding. In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India it is stated as under: Continuous efforts were made by the State Police on the following dates to apprehend the detenue- 25.04.1996, 20.05.1996, 30.06.1996, 23.07.1996, 28.08.1996, 24.09.1996, 15.10.1996, 26.11.1996, 18.12.1996, 20.12.1996, 17.1.97, 27.2.97, 26.3.97, 26. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding him out. There is also no material to show that the detaining authority had made any serious attempt during this whole period of delay to find out if the detention order remains unexplained. The unreasonable delay in executing the order creates a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the detaining authority as regards the immediate necessity of detaining the petitioner in order to preve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
