TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) (referred to as the 'Act' hereinafter). As the facts are more or less the same and common contentions have been advanced, these two applications are being disposed of by a common order. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1541184 was detained with effect from December 28, 1983, pursuant to an order made under Section 3(1) of the Act on December 7, 1983. The detention was assailed before the Gujarat High Court in a writ petition filed OF January 22, 1984. While the said application was being heard, the order of detention was revoked on April 5, 1984, but on the same day another order under s. 3(1) of the Act was made directing his detention and he was detained pursuant to that order with effect from the very day. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese writ petitions before this Court the Act was amended by Central Act 58/84. The Amending Act received assent of the President on August 30, 1984 but became effective from July 31,1984- Section 9 of the principal Act of 1974 was amended by s. 2 of this Act and the amended provision authorised making of declaration by the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government not below of the rank of Additional Secretary to that Government on the basis of satisfaction that the detenu- (a) smuggles or is likely to smuggle goods into, out of or through any area highly vulnerable to smuggling; or (b) abets or is likely to abet the smuggling of goods into, out of or through any area highly vulnerable to smuggling, or (c) engage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of s. 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, a detention order may at any time be revoked or modified-(a) notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer of a State Government by that State Government or by the Central Government; (b) notwithstanding that the order. has been made by an officer of the Central Government or by a State Government, by the Central Government; (2) The revocation of a detention order shall not bar the making of another detention order under s. 3 against the same person. Law of preventive detention within the ambit of which the Act is covered has accepted by our Constitution. Challenge to legislations of preventive detention as being ultra virus the Constitution has, therefore, been rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Government or the Central Government may revoke the order; and (b) if the order has been made by an officer of the Central Government or by a Stat Government, revocation is permissible by the Central Government. Sub-section (1) of s. 11 indicates that the power conferred under it in the situations envisaged in clauses (a) and (b) is exercisable without prejudice to the provisions of s. 21 of the General Clauses Act. That section provides that a power to issue orders includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions if any, to add, to amend vary or rescind such order. Under s. 21 of the General Clauses Act, therefore, the authority making an order of detention would be entitled to revoke that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee with the contention advanced by counsel for the petitioners that the word 'revocation' in sub-s (2) has the same meaning and covers the same situations as provided in sub-s. (1) of s. 11 of the Act. This would necessarily mean that the power under sub-s. (2) would be exercisable in cases covered by sub-s. (1). This leads us to examine the tenability of the submission of Mr. Jethmalani as to the true meaning of the word 'revocation'. 'Revoke' is the verb and 'revocation' is its noun. These words have no statutory definition and, therefore, would take the commonsense meaning available for these words. Black's Law Dictionary gives the meaning of the word 'revoke' to be the recall of some autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Clauses Act, the power is exercisable by the authority making the order, the named authorities under clauses (a) and(b) of s. 11(1) of the Act are also entitled to exercise the power of revocation. When the High Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution it does not make an order of revocation. By issuing a high prerogative writ like habeas corpus or certioraris it quashes the order impugned before it and by declaring the order to be void and striking down the same it nullifies the order. The ultimate effect of cancellation of an order by revocation and quashing of the same in exercise of the high prerogative jurisdiction vested in the High Court may be the same but the manner in which the situation is obtained i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
