TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus : (iv) The petitioner says and submits that it is enjoined upon the detaining authority to disclose to this Honourable Court, the date on which the detaining authority received the proposal for the detention of the detenu and which documents he received along with the proposal. The petitioner says and submits that it further enjoined upon the detaining authority to disclose to this Hon'ble Court as to when the detaining authority formulated the grounds of detention. The petitioner says and submits that it is further enjoined upon the detaining authority to disclose to this Honourable Court as to whether the detaining authority had received any further documents thereafter and if so, when and which documents he had received at a later date after he had drafted the grounds of detention. The petitioner says and submits that if the detaining authority had received any further documents after he had drafted the grounds of detention, then it is further enjoined upon the detaining authority to disclose to this Honourable Court as to whether the detaining authority had rescinded the grounds already drafted by him and as to whether he had reconsidered afresh the documents earl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , change, delete etc. cannot be recorded. After considering the proposal the Detaining Authority arrived at his subjective satisfaction and issued the order of detention. The Detaining Authority has acted promptly and vigilantly and issued the Detention order at the earliest. Therefore, it is denied that the order of detention is mala fide, ab-initio, null and void. 6. The substance of the reply contained in paragraph 9 is that the Detaining Authority passed the detention order after considering the proposal and arriving at his subjective satisfaction. We find that in paragraph 9, the ground raised by the petitioner in ground (iv) has not been specifically rebutted. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit of Shri P.M. Nimonkar, reference of which has been made above while answering to the ground raised in ground (ii), the following facts have been stated : The additional information, documents regarding the copy of adjudication order, copy of Show Cause Notice, copy of retraction application filed and arbitrary reply, legible copies of page Nos. 45, 75, 555, 771, 900, 2157, 2230, 2500, 2598, 2956, 2957, 3038, 3543, 3555, 3586, 3631, 3705, 3717, 3731, 3737, 3761, 3937, 3939, 3945, 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submitted to the Deputy Secretary for consideration. The Deputy Secretary considered the materials on 11-10-1999 and submitted the same on 12-10-1999. Upon consideration of the documents which were already available, the Detaining Authority formulated the draft grounds of detention on 16-10-1999 and instructed his office to put a fair copy. The fair copy appears to have been placed before the Detaining Authority on 26-10-1999 as per the draft grounds of detention formulated by the Detaining Authority on 16-10-1999. In the meanwhile on 18-10-1999 though the sponsoring authority forwarded the requisite information and documents which were received on that very day, the Detaining Authority passed the detention order on 27-10-1999 as per the draft grounds of detention formulated on 16-10-1999. The aforesaid facts leave no manner of doubt that on 16-10-1999 the Detaining Authority applied his mind upon the documents which were incomplete and on the basis of incomplete documents formulated the draft grounds of detention and then the detention order was issued on 27-10-1999 by the Detaining Authority though in the meanwhile the required information and documents have been received. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and the grounds of detention were formulated on 23rd December, 1985. It is not disputed that at the time the grounds were formulated, the Detaining Authority had before it documents only at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in the list of documents furnished to the detenu and the document at Serial No. 6 was actually received and considered by the Detaining Authority on 24th February, 1986 although, according to the Detaining Authority, along with earlier documents. The affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority is however silent on whether after considering all the documents together the grounds of detention were re-formulated. It is the case of the Detaining Authority that the documents are considered together with a view to conform to the decisions of this Court delivered earlier. What is required by the said decisions is that the grounds should be formulated only after considering all the documents together. That certainly has not been done in the present case. And, hence, the detention order has to be set aside. Detenu to be releated forthwith unless required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In Savita Jain, the Divi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Detaining Authority, which satisfaction is to be arrived at by applying mind to all the material available on record. We thought that it is elementary that the grounds of detention have to be culled from the material in question after considering it together at a time. It is only the satisfaction so arrived at which can be considered valid in the eye of law. For then alone it satisfies the test of a conclusion arrived at on the basis of the totality of the circumstances taken together. We had pointed out that this test cannot be satisfied if the documents are considered piecemeal. When the grounds are formulated and the order is passed already and kept ready earlier on the basis of the material then available and such grounds and order are merely endorsed from time to time after considering the documents received subsequently whether in isolation or together with the earlier documents, it makes a mockery of law and can hardly satisfy the test of a conclusion drawn by considering all the material together. Where the conclusions are pre-drawn and the documents received subsequently are only referred to, to confirm or endorse the said conclusions, the process indulged in is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
