TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ors., AIR (1979) SC 1953, ran in the teeth of the judgment of Rajbhar's case (supra) referred the matter to a larger Bench. The referring Bench noticing that the detenu had already suffered detention for a period of 10 months out of the 12 months period of detention imposed by the order dated 15th December, 1982, directed the detenu to be released on parole. Mr. Harjinder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken us through the judgments in Rajbhar's case and Pushpa's case (supra). A careful perusal of both the judgments, however, shows that there is no conflict between the two. The view expressed in Rajbhar's case (supra), in our opinion, lays down the correct law and does not call for any reconsid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions were rejected. The order of detention and the order of rejection or the representations was challenged through writ petition No. 6/1983, which was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 1st February, 1983. The order of the Delhi High Court was challenged through Special Leave Petition No. 379/1983 in this Court. Together with the Special Leave Petition No. 379/1983, another writ petition, being Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 182/1983, was also filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, once again putting in issue the same order of detention which had been upheld by the Delhi High Court. The Special Leave Petition as well as the Writ Petition stood dismissed by a three Judge Bench of this Court on 23rd February, 1983. The petitioner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent events were pointed out which may have warranted a 'fresh' consideration of the representation made by the detenu. It was only change in the language of the representation. The Delhi Administration was, therefore, justified in rejecting the representation dated 7th May, 1983 by the order communicated to the petitioner on 23rd May, 1983. Since, there were no fresh grounds nor any fresh material or subsequent events brought out in the representation dated 7th May, 1983, there was no obligation on the State to get that representation considered by a fresh Advisory Board and, therefore, the exercise of discretion by the State in rejecting the representation and not constituting a 'fresh' Advisory Board cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
