TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est was made by the petitioner by way of representation dated 27th January, 2000 to the Advisory Board. It was personally handed over to the Advisory Board seeking permission to examine his witness who was standing outside. But the Advisory Board rejected the same vide order dated 5th February, 2000. In order to appreciate the challenge raised by Mr. Naveen Malhotra, lets in brief go through the facts of this case. In brief the case of the respondent was that the petitioner arrived at IGI Airport from Hongkong by Air India Flight No. AI-319. He was carrying two checked in baggage beside one Hongkong duty-free polythene bag as cabin baggage. He walked through the green channel and was asked by the Customs Officer whether he was carrying any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14-2-2000 petitioner was informed that Special Secetary-cum-Director General CEIB on behalf of the Central Govt. and rejected his representation. The petitioner was again informed on 16-2-2000 that his detention order had been confirmed for a period of one year from the date of his detention i.e., 27-11-1999. 3. On being served, the Detaining Authority as well as the Union of India a filed their respective counter affidavits. On behalf of the Detaining Authority plea was taken that the detention order was passed on the basis of the material available on record, and that the detention order was in the nature of preventive measure. To the same effect is the plea raised by the Union of India. 4. Admittedly petitioner made representation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal right. In the case of Vijay Kumar v. Union of India, 1982 (2) SCC 57, the Apex Court while considering the right of a detenu came to the conclusion that when the petitioner makes a specific prayer to permit him to examine his witnesses in rebuttal to the grounds of detention and also indicate that his witnesses standing outside, when such a request is made then the Advisory Board has to give him opportunity. It is only when the petitioner does not choose to make a specific prayer before the Advisory Board that the Advisory Board may not take cognizance of the same. But in the present case, written request was made to the Advisory Board which had been rejected without assigning any reason. This act of denial of his right to adduce his ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
