New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 1260 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2015 (9) TMI 1260 - DELHI HIGH COURT - TMI - Quashing of detention orders - Non execution of detention order - activities of acquiring, possessing, hoarding, selling and exporting NDPS items - incident took place on 23/24.10.2011 whereas the detention order was passed on 10.9.2013 - Non availability of relevant documents - detention order of the co-accused persons have already been revoked - Held that:- Based on the averments made in the counter affidavit and the supporting documents to show the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

11.2013, the petitioner did not surrender; thereafter the respondents had no option but to file reports dated 8.1.2014 & 28.2.2014 under Section 8 (1) (a) of PIT NDPS Act before the Ld. CMM, New Delhi. On 14.3.2014, the Ld. CMM, New Delhi passed orders for issuing process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure qua the petitioner. The process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was published in Indian Express dated 22.5.2014. The said order under Section 82 of the Code .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

petition at the pre-existing stage or pre-execution of the detention order stage is maintainable, and the Courts are entitled to examine all grounds except the ground relating to sufficiency of material relied upon by the detaining authorities in passing the order of detention, which has been held to be legally the most important aspect of the matter, but cannot be gone into by the Court at the pre-execution stage when the grounds of detention have not even been served on the detenu.

.....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

service of the detention order. The Apex Court of India in the case of Deepak Bajaj (2008 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT) has held that the celebrated writ of habeas corpus has been described as “a great constitutional privilege of the citizen” or “the first security of civil liberty”; and has also held that it is a remedy to safeguard the liberty of the citizen which is a precious right and is not to be transgressed by anyone. In this case the liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed by send .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a and Mr.Amish Aggarwala, Advs. JUDGEMENT G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Rule DB. 2. With the consent of counsel for the parties present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. 3. Present petition has been filed by petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents to place on record the detention order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ry outset, we may notice that this criminal writ petition has been filed at the pre-execution stage. 5. As per the writ petition, similar detention orders dated 10.9.2013, issued against the co-accused persons, namely, Nilesh Shukla and Virender Singh, stand revoked on the recommendation of the Advisory Board. A copy of the detention order dated 10.9.2013 in respect of co-accused, Nilesh Shukla, has been filed along with the writ petition. Copies of the grounds of detention passed in support of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the petitioner was throughout available at his home and was attending all his daily routine activities. 7. The second ground raised before us is that the incident took place on 23/24.10.2011 whereas the detention order was passed on 10.9.2013 i.e. after a long and undue delay thus the nexus between the purpose of detention and the allegations made in the grounds of detention, stand snapped. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the delay, the detention order has become stale .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he time of passing of the detention order. 10. No other ground has been pressed before us. 11. Mr.Ahluwalia, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition while relying on the decision of the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Subhash Popatlal Dave v. Union of India and Another, reported at (2014) 1 SCC 280. Counsel further submits that in the case of Subhash Popatlal Dave (supra) it has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the counter affidavit, which read as under: 2a. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue had issued detention order No. U-11011/04/2012-PITNDPS dated 10.9.2013 under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PIT NDPS Act for brevity and convenience) against the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was aware of the address of the petitioner in Delhi, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the petitioner had left the premises long back. On 30.10.2013, 13.7.2014, 15.10.2014 and 29.12.2014, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Lucknow Zonal Unit visited at the premises of the petitioner situated at 73, Village Bashara, P.O. Sotipur, P.S. Varsathi, Distt. Jaunpur, U.P., but the petitioner was not found available at the said address. b. An order dated 20.11.2013 issued under F.No. U- 11011/04/2012-PITNDPS, in this regard, was published in the Gazette of India (Extraor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1.2014 & 28.2.2014 under Section 8 (1) (a) of PIT NDPS Act before the Ld. CMM, New Delhi. A copy of the reports dated 8.1.2014 & 28.2.2014 is Annexure-B. On 14.3.2014, the Ld. CMM, New Delhi passed orders for issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. qua the petitioner herein. The process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was published in Indian Express dated 22.5.2014. A copy of the publication of the citation under Section 82 Cr.P.C, returnable on 28.5.2014 is Annexure-C. The said order under Se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r was not found available. The process issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been pasted at the conspicuous part of the said premises. The report in this regard had been submitted to the Ld. CMM, New Delhi. The process dated 2.9.2014 with report is Annexure-E. The order of issuance of fresh process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was again repeated on 31.3.2015, returnable on 1.6.2015. A copy of order dated 31.3.2015 is Annexure-F. c. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is not available at h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly was residing in Mumbai, but he was neither aware of his address nor any of his contract number. He further informed that he was not in contact with him for the last two years. d. The petitioner is also one of the accused in the prosecution filed by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence before the special court of NDPS, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 22, 23, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. e. On 13.5.2014 when the matter was taken up by the Ld. Trial Court .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation for recall of order dated non-bailable warrants and the application was allowed. A copy of order dated 15.7.2014 is Annexure-H. 14. While relying on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Others v. Smt.Alka Subhash Gadia and Another, reported at 1992 Supp (1) SCC 496, more particularly para 13, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 submits that jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it petition is maintainable or not at the pre-execution stage. 17. It is no longer res integra that pre-execution challenge in a writ petition is maintainable, however, the power is to be exercised sparingly. 18. In the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Others (supra), the Full Bench of the Supreme Court has held as under: 30. As regards his last contention, viz, that to deny a right to the proposed detenu to challenge the order of detention and the grounds on which it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

striction on the p;owers of the High Court and this court to review judicially the order of detention. The powers under Articles 226 and 32 are wide, and are untrammelled by any external restrictions, and can reach any executive order resulting in civil or criminal consequences. However, the Courts have over the years evolved certain self-restraints for exercising these powers. They have done so in the interests of the administration of justice and for better and more efficient and informed exer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

High Court and this Court to invoke their discretionary extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 respectively. That jurisdiction by its very nature is to be used sparingly and in circumstances where no other efficacious remedy is available. We have while discussing the relevant authorities earlier dealt in detail with the circumstances under which these extraordinary powers are used and are declined to be used by the courts. To accept Shri Jain s present contention wou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

made will be frustrated since such orders are in operation only for a limited period. Thirdly, and this is more important, it is not correct to say that the Courts have no power to entertain grievances against any detention order prior to its execution. The courts have the necessary power and they have used it in proper cases as has been pointed out above, although such cases have been few and the grounds on which the courts have interfered with them at the pre-execution stage are necessarily v .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on on any other ground does not amount to the abandonment of the said power or to their denial to the proposed detenu, but prevents their abuse and the perversion of the law in question. 31. Lastly, it is always open for the detenu or anyone on his behalf to challenge the detention order by way of habeas corpus petition on any of the grounds available to him. It is not, therefore, correct to say that no judicial review of the detention order is available. In the view we are taking which applies .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

proper course in such cases it to hear the petition as expeditiously as possible. 19. In the case of Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported at (2010) 4 SCC 122 the Supreme Court has held that the five grounds mentioned in the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Others (supra) on which the Court can set aside the detention order at the pre-existing stage are only illustrative and non-exhaustive. 20. The Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Bajaj v. State .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

although such a detention order is illegal he must yet go to jail though he will be released later is a meaningless and futile exercise. 10. It must be remembered that every person has a fundamental right of liberty vide Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21, which gives the right of life and liberty, is the most fundamental of all the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution. Though, no doubt, restrictions can be placed on these rights in the interest of public order, security of the State, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pre execution stage and satisfies the Court that the detention order is clearly illegal, there is no reason why the Court should stay its hands and compel the petitioner to go to jail even though he is bound to be released subsequently (since the detention order was illegal). As already mentioned above, the liberty of a person is a precious fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and should not be likely transgressed. Hence in our opinion Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia's case (supra) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d with the greatest care and caution and the courts have to be ever vigilant to see that this power is not abused or misused." 17 In Francis Coralie Mullin vs. W.C. Khambra and others AIR 1980 SC 849 this Court observed (vide para 5) : "5.... No freedom is higher than personal freedom and no duty higher than to maintain it unimpaired" 19. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a writ of habeas corpus lies only when there is illegal detention, and in the present case sin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, etc. and they can also issue orders and directions apart from issuing writs. 20. The words in the nature of' imply that the powers of this Court or the High Court are not subject to the traditional restrictions on the powers of the British Courts to issue writs. Thus the powers of this Court and the High Court are much wider than those of the British Courts vide Dwarka Nath vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, D Ward, Kanpur & Anr. AIR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mus can be issued. 22. The celebrated writ of habeas corpus has been described as a great constitutional privilege of the citizen or the first security of civil liberty . The writ provides a prompt and effective remedy against illegal detention and its purpose is to safeguard the liberty of the citizen which is a precious right not to be lightly transgressed by anyone. The imperative necessity to protect those precious rights is a lesson taught by all history and all human experience. Our foundi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case is not to be exercised less vigilantly, because the subject whose liberty is in question may not be particularly meritorious. It is indeed one test of belief in principles if you apply them to cases with which you have no sympathy at all. You really believe in freedom of speech if you are willing to allow it to men whose opinion seem to you wrong and even dangerous; and the subject is entitled only to be deprived of his liberty by due process of law, although that due process if taken will .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng or others, this Court is a place where the King doth sit in person, and we have power to examine it, and if it appears that any man hath injury or wrong by his imprisonment, we have power to deliver and discharge him, if otherwise, he is to be remanded by us to prison." 25. In Halsbury's Laws of England, (4th Edn., Vol.11, para 1454, p.769), it is stated: "In any matter involving the liberty of the subject the action of the Crown or its ministers or officials is subject to the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e lowliest subject against the most powerful. The writ has frequently been used to test the validity of acts of the executive and, in particular, to test the legality of detention under emergency legislation. No peer or lord of Parliament has privilege of peerage or Parliament against being compelled to render obedience to a writ of habeas corpus directed to him." 21. In para 2 of Subhash Popatlal Dave (supra) it has been held as under: 2. A common question initially arose in all these matt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is Court (Bench) has already delivered a judgment on this question vide judgment and order dated 10.07.2012 reported in (2012) 7 SCC 533 that the right of a proposed detenu to challenge a preventive detention order passed against him may be challenged at the pre-execution stage on grounds other than those set out in paragraph 30 of the judgment in Alka Subhash Gadia s case and it was held therein that the order of preventive detention can be challenged beyond the five conditions enumerated in Al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onsideration is whether the three grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner can be considered by this court at the pre-execution stage in this writ petition. 24. The first argument raised by Mr.Ashutosh, counsel for the petitioner is that the detention order was passed on 10.9.2013 but till date has not been executed, despite the fact that throughout this period the petitioner was available at home and was attending all his daily routine activities. 25. A similar question had arisen be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

age of non-execution and challenge the detention order which remained unexecuted. For the sake of brevity, I refrain from repeating the facts of each writ petition, appeals and transfer petition herein which have been consolidated and heard as a batch, as they have already been recorded in the judgment and order of the Hon ble the Chief Justice Atlamas Kabr. 26. Based on the averments made in the counter affidavit and the supporting documents to show the publication and citation under Section 82 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

would be no live link between the incident and the detention order and, thus, sought quashing of the detention order. The Supreme Court has lucidly dealt with the law in the case of Subhash Popatlal (Supra) and held that an absconder or a person who evades the execution of the detention order would not be entitled to challenge the detention order at the pre-execution stage on the ground that the detention order has taken a long time for execution. In the case of Subhash Popatlal (Supra) it was h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dency on which the authorities had no control specially when the order of detention is allowed to be challenged before the appropriate court even at the pre-execution stage on any ground that may be available to him except of course the materials which has weighed with the authorities to pass the order of detention as it is obvious that justifiability of the material cannot be gone into at the preexecution stage since the order of detention and the ground for such order is yet to be served on th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Union of India, (2000) 3 SCC 409 wherein the Constitution Bench observed that a person may try to abscond and thereafter take a stand that period for which detention was directed is over and, therefore, order of detention is infructuous. It was clearly held that the same plea even if raised deserved to be rejected as without substance. It should all the more be so when the detenu stalled the service of the order and/or detention in custody by obtaining orders of the court. In fact, in Sayed Ta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the detention order was challenged at the preexecution stage which remained pending for long and the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents detenue therein and quashed the detention order restraining the appellants from enforcing the order. But, this Court overruled it and held that the judgment of the High Court was clearly unsustainable and hence was set aside. It was further held therein that the question as to whether it would be desirable to take the respondents .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d that the purpose of detention under the COFEPOSA is not punitive but preventive and there must be a live and proximate link‟ so that if there is a long and unexplained delay between the order of detention and arrest of the detenue, the order of detention may be struck down unless the grounds indicate a fresh application of mind of the detaining authority to the new situation and the changed circumstances. But where the delay is adequately explained and is found to be the result of recalc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

best possible efforts made by the authorities to serve the order, the order could not be executed. Taking the circumstances into consideration under which the order of detention could not be served, it was held that in view of detenue‟s own act of evading arrest, delay in execution of the order did not render the detention invalid. 13. In the matter of Hare Ram Pandey vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 289, effect of delay in execution of detention order was the principal issue fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

consideration of the representation etc. are hypothetical in nature. Where a person against whom detention order passed was absconding, plea taken by him or on his behalf that the period for which detention was directed expired, deserved to be rejected. While considering this question, it was held that although the nature and object of the preventive detention order is anticipatory and non-punitive in nature, object is to maintain public order and security of State. This gives jurisdiction to cu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the said case having failed to join investigation despite High Court‟s order would justify questioning of such order. This Court held that the detenue could not take advantage of his own wrong and challenge the detention order on the plea that the purpose of execution of detention order no longer survived as maximum statutory period of detention would have lapsed by then. 15. From the ratio of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court which also includes a Constitu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

there is no live link between the order of detention and the purpose for which it had been issued at the relevant time. In the light of ratio of the decisions referred to hereinabove and the law on preventive detention, it is essentially the sufficiency of materials relied upon for passing the order of detention which ought to weigh as to whether the order of detention was fit to be quashed and set aside and merely the length of time and liberty to challenge the same at the preexecution stage w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which legally is the most important aspect of the matter but cannot be gone into by the Court as it has been allowed to be challenged at the pre-execution stage when the grounds of detention has not even been served on him. 16. Thus, if it is held that howsoever the grounds of detention might be weighty and sustainable which persuaded the authorities to pass the order of detention, the same is fit to be quashed merely due to long lapse of time specially when the detenue is allowed to challenge t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t its live link with the order of detention. This, in my view, would render the very purpose of preventive detention laws as redundant and nugatory which cannot be permitted. On the contrary, if the order of detention is allowed to be served on the proposed detenue even at a later stage, it would be open for the proposed detenue to confront the materials or sufficiency of the material relied upon by the authorities for passing the order of detention so as to contend that at the relevant time whe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fore, in my view, the order of detention is not fit to be quashed and should not be quashed merely due to long lapse of time but the grounds of detention ought to be served on him once he gains knowledge that the order of detention is in existence so as to offer him a plank to challenge even the grounds of detention after which the courts will have to examine whether the order of detention which was passed at the relevant time but could not be served was based on sufficient material justifying t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the said grounds as required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India……. 18. The consequence that follows from the above is that each individual/proposed detenue will have to be served with the order of detention which had been passed against them alongwith the grounds and the materials relied upon by the authorities to pass the order of detention leaving it open to them to challenge the correctness of the order by way of a representation before the appropriate Authority or Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

th the object and purpose of the preventive detention laws. 27. In paragraph 13 aforegoing, we have extracted the relevant paragraph of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. As per the counter affidavit, the officers of respondent no.3 made an attempt to execute the detention order at the Delhi premises of the petitioner on 18.9.2013, however, the landlord informed the officers that the petitioner had left the premises long back. It is contended that on 30.10.2013, 13.7.2014, 15.10.201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tents of the said gazette order were also published in local Lucknow edition of English and Hindi newspapers on 9.1.2014. It is also contended that despite publication of order dated 20.11.2013, the petitioner did not surrender; thereafter the respondents had no option but to file reports dated 8.1.2014 & 28.2.2014 under Section 8 (1) (a) of PIT NDPS Act before the Ld. CMM, New Delhi. On 14.3.2014, the Ld. CMM, New Delhi passed orders for issuing process under Section 82 of the Code of Crimi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submits that on 29.12.2014 the officers of DRI, DZU had visited at the premises of the petitioner, but the petitioner was not found available. The process issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been pasted at the conspicuous part of the said premises. Thereafter again order of issuance of fresh process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was repeated on 31.3.2015, returnable on 1.6.2015. 28. In view of the detailed discussion by the Supreme Court and having .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e case of Subhash Popatlal (Supra), in paragraph 15, which has been reproduced above, wherein it has been held that in the pre-execution stage, the court can examine all grounds except the ground regarding sufficiency of all material relied upon by the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. It has been held When a proposed detenu is allowed to challenge the order of detention at the pre-execution stage on any ground whatsoever contending that the order of detention was legally un .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated 10.9.2013 have been passed in respect to the petitioner and the co-accused persons, namely, Nilesh Shukla and Virender Singh. The orders so passed stand revoked on the recommendation of the Advisory Board. 31. It is submitted that the detention orders were revoked, as the incident took place on 23 / 24th October, 2011, whereas the detention order were passed on 10.9.2013 after a long and undue delay, thus the live link between the incident and the passing of the detention order stands snapp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1994. 20. Furthermore no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the Respondent as to why the order of detention has been issued after such a long time. The said question has also not been examined by the authorities before issuing the order of detention. 21. The question as regard delay in issuing the order of detention has been held to be a valid ground for quashing an order of detention by this Court in T.D. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nces and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he detaining authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner." 22. The delay caused in this case in issuing the order of detention has not been explained. In fact, no reason in that behalf whatsoever has been assigned at all. 33. In the case of Sumitra Dey Bhattacharya Vs Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) No. 2118/2014 dated 22.01.2015, this court has held as under: 59. …&he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lain the delay The department itself in its Circular bearing F.No.671/6/2001- Cus.VIII, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, has taken note of this. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 34. A careful reading of the judgments of Rajinder Arora and Subhash Popatlal Dave (supra) leads to the conclusion that a writ petition at the pre-existing stage or pre-execution of the detention order stage is maintainable, and the Courts are ent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version