TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epeated representations, the ground on which the representation was made was only that the co-detenue's detention had been quashed. That ground was, for reasons already noted, not available to the Petitioner. As regards the delay in the detention order being served on the husband of the Petitioner, the counsel for the Petitioner was unable to explain what prevented the Petitioner from urging this ground when the earlier writ petition was filed. Even in the additional affidavit filed, there has been no explanation why such a ground could not have been urged earlier. Unless the Court is satisfied that the Petitioner was prevented for some valid reason from urging such ground, it will not be open to the Petitioner to have a second round of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Petitioner s earlier writ petition being W.P.(Crl.) No.643/2017. The Special Leave Petition filed by the Petitioner against said judgment being SLP (Crl.) No. 5874/2017 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18th August 2017. 4. It appears that after the dismissal of the SLP, a representation dated 6th September 2017 was made by the Petitioner to the detaining authority, i.e. the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) inter alia pointing out that the detention order of the co-detenu, Mr. Narender Kumar Jain, who was the employer of the detenu Mr. Raju Arora, had already been quashed by the High Court by its judgment dated 31st May 2017 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 8th September 2017 of the learned ACMM, the Petitioner became aware of the fact that there was absolutely no effort on the part of the detaining authority to personally serve the detention order dated 10th October, 2016..... 7. Apart from the above two grounds, it is sought to be urged by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the representation made by the Petitioner on 6th September, 2017 ought to have been considered by the Detaining Authority and not by the Director General, CEIB. Lastly, it is contended that with the detention of the co-detenue Mr. Narender Kumar Jain, the employer of Mr. Raju Arora having been quashed, a different treatment should not be accorded to Mr. Arora. 8. As far as the last mentioned ground is conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
