Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Hitendra Nath Goswami vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 6 January, 1984

Shri Yumnam Anand Meitei Alias Bocha vs State Of Manipur And Ors. on 5 April, 2006

Corollary of the decisions of the Five Judges of this Court in Hltendra Nath Goswamy (supra) is that "calling of para-wise comments from the State Govt. to the representation filed by the detenu or the filing of representation by the detenu is not the essential requirements for the Central Govt. for taking decisions as to whether the detention order under the NSA is to be revoked or not. The fact of the case is spelt out in para 2 which reads as follows:
Gauhati High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - T N Singh - Full Document

Celiner Victor vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 28 February, 2000

7. It is, therefore, clear that Central Government may revoke or modify a detention order notwithstanding the fact that the order has been passed by the State Government. Even if an order of detention is passed by the State Government on a representation being made or on the basis of information before it, Central Government may revoke or modify the order. Report is submitted to the Central Government for consideration of the question as to whether any revocation or modification is called for or any affirmation has to be made. Discretionary power of the Central Government under Section 11 (1) in the context of Section 3(3) is coupled with the duty to consider the report from the State Government with reasonable expedition notwithstanding the question whether any representation has been made by detenu to the State Government. (See : Hitendra Nath Goswami v. State of Assam 1984 Crl LJ 1558. Position is, therefore, clear that when there is a representation made to the Central Government, the expedition warranted in the case of State Government is also equally applicable to the Central Government.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Haobijam Kenjit Singh Alias Kenedy vs State Of Manipur And Ors. on 8 December, 2006

8. Even in the case of Somi Angkang v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1985) 2 GLR 1, the Division Bench of this Court, relying on Hitendra Nath Goswami (supra), has held that it is the duty of the Central Government to consider, in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 14, the report submitted to it by the State Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 3. In the case at hand, paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, reads as follows:
Gauhati High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - I Ansari - Full Document

Prasad Bhola Alias Durga Prasad Bhola vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 5 November, 1996

10. It is, therefore, clear that the Central Government may revoke or modify a detention order notwithstanding the fact that an order has been made by the State Government, Even if an order of detention is passed by the State Government, on a representation being made or on the basis of the information before it. Central Government may revoke or modify the order. Report is submitted to the Central Government for consideration of the question as to whether any revocation or modification is called for or any affirmation has to be made. Discretionary power of the Central Government under section 14(1) in the context of section 3(5) is coupled with the duty to consider the report from the Stats Government with reasonable expedition notwithstanding any representation has been made by the detenu to the State Government. (See Hitendra Nath Goswami v. State of Assam and Ors. : 1984 Cri.LJ 1558): That being the position, in our considered opinion, the detenu has to be informed that he can make representation to the Central Government. Even if section 8 does not specifically refer to such requirement, yet on the background of curtailment of personal liberty guarded by the provision of article 22(5) detenu must be Informed that he can knock the doors of the Central Government for revocation of his order of detention. Such a requirement flows from article 22(5). Decisions of the apex Court in Amir Shad Khan, Veeramani and Kundanbhai's cases (supra) put the matter beyond a shadow of doub. The necessary intimation having not been given to the detenu inevitable conclusion is that the right to make an effective representation has been infringed, thereby vitiating the order of detention.
Orissa High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Celiner Victor vs State Of Kerala And 2 Ors. on 28 February, 2000

7. It is, therefore, clear that Central Government may revoke or modify a detention order notwithstanding the fact that the order has been passed by the State Government. Even if an order of detention is passed by the State Government on a representation being made or on the basis of information before it, Central Government may revoke or modify the order. Report is submitted to the Central Government for consideration of the question as to whether any revocation or modification is called for or any affirmation has to be made. Discretionary power of the Central Government under Section 11(1) in the context of Section 3(3) is coupled with the duty to consider the report from the State Government with reasonable expedition notwithstanding the question whether any representation has been made by detenu to the State Government. (See: Hitendra Nath Goswami v. State of Assam and Ors. 1984 Cri.L.J. 1558. Position is, therefore, clear that when there is a representation made to the Central Government, the expedition warranted in the case of State Government is also equally applicable to the Central Government.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Pasayat - Full Document

M. Lakshmi vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 25 June, 1991

10. There is yet another decision to which our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners to support his contention that the very purpose of sending the report u/S. 3(4) of the Act by the State Government is with a view to have it considered and not to have it thrown unread into the waste paper basket. The question of law referred to the Full Bench of the Assam High Court in Hitendra Nath Goswami v. State of Assam 1984 Cri LJ 1558 is, whether on the report from the State Government under S. 3(5) National Security Act, 1980, the Central Government has the discretion coupled with duty u/S. 14(1) thereof to consider the question of revocation of detention order expeditiously, irrespective of the fact that there is no representation/petition from the detenu to the Central Government for the purpose. S. 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980 corresponds to S. 3(4) of the present Act while S. 14(1) of that Act is the same as one u/S. 14(1) of the present Act. Dealing with that question, the majority view of the Full Bench runs (at page 1566) :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1