Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 234 (2.96 seconds)
Documents citing Naresh Kumar Goyal vs Union Of India And Others on 5 October, 2005

Suresh Kumar vs Union Territory Of Jammu And on 26 November, 2024

3. The respondents through the reply affidavit filed by the detaining authority have resisted the petition in hand on the grounds that the petitioner has no cause of action to prefer the instant petition as none of his Constitutional, legal or statutory rights stand infringed or violated by them. That petitioner has raised disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated upon through the medium of a writ petition. That the petitioner has already availed an alternative remedy by filing the 5 HCP No. 87/2023 representation before the detaining authority which forwarded the same to the government for consideration. That the preventive detention of the petitioner was found imperative by the detaining authority upon his application of mind to the material i.e. dossier and other documents submitted by the Superintendent of Police concerned. That the petitioner after getting the bail in one case used to repeat the crime and, as such, his detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in activities in relation to the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. That the copies of the detention record were furnished in entirety to the petitioner who was also informed of his right to make a representation which he did and came to be considered. That the petitioner has admitted in the petition that he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and imprisonment till rising of the court upon his conviction in one of the case FIR against him. That the detention of the petitioner was ordered also keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in LPA No. 55/2023 titled "Anil Sharma Vs. UT of J&K & Ors.", decided on 16.08.2023 and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "Naresh Kumar Goyal Vs. Union of India", [(2005) 8 SCC 276] and in "Haradhan Saha Vs. State of W.B", (1975) 3 SCC, in which cases it has been held that it is not the number of acts that are to be determined for detention of an individual but it is impact of an act which is material and determinative. It is a trite law that the order of detention is not curative or reformative or punitive action but a prevention action, avowed object of which is being to prevent the anti-social and subversive 6 HCP No. 87/2023 elements from imperiling the welfare of the Country or the Society. That the power of a preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Akash Bharatbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 27 October, 2020

38. We are of the view that the case does not appear to be falling in the categories, where pre-execution challenge to the Detention Order ought to be permissible. The Supreme Court in "Naresh Kumar Goyal" (Supra) (a three judge Bench decision), after a comprehensive review of the case law and noticing the principles laid down in Alka Subhash Gadia's case (Supra), also referred to "Sayed Taher Bawamiya V. Joint Secretary to the Government of India and others", reported in 2000(8) SCC 630 : (a three judge Bench decision), wherein it was held that the Court in Alka Gadia's case (Supra) was also concerned with the matter, where the detention order had not been served, but, the High Court had entertained the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 32, which is discretionary in nature, should not be exercised in a case where the proposed detenu successfully evades the service of the order. If, in every case the detenu is permitted to challenge and seek the stay of the operation of the order before its execution, the very purpose of the order and the law under which it is made, will be frustrated, since the order are in operation for a limited period. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the Courts have necessary power in appropriate cases to interfere with the detention order at the pre-execution stage, but, the scope of interference is very limited. It was held that the Courts would interfere at Page 24 of 36 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 02 22:05:06 IST 2021 C/SCA/12751/2020 ORDER the pre-execution stage with detention orders, only after they were satisfied of the existence of the five situations enumerated earlier. In the instant case, it is the petitioner's own contention that he has not allowed the detention order to be served on him.
Gujarat High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Vajir Misbahul Sha vs State Of Gujarat on 17 September, 2020

38 We are of the view that the case does not appear to be falling in the categories, where pre­execution challenge to the Detention Order ought to be permissible. The Supreme Court in "Naresh Kumar Goyal" (Supra) (a three judge Bench decision), after a comprehensive review of the case law and noticing the principles laid down in Alka Subhash Gadia's case (Supra), also referred to "Sayed Taher Bawamiya V. Joint Secretary to the Government of India and others", reported in 2000(8) SCC 630 : (a three judge Bench decision), wherein it was held that the Court in Alka Gadia's case (Supra) was also concerned with the matter, where the detention order had not been served, but, the High Court had entertained the petition under Article 226 of the Page 15 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 13 21:02:22 IST 2020 C/SCA/11221/2020 ORDER Constitution of India. The Court held that the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 32, which is discretionary in nature, should not be exercised in a case where the proposed detenu successfully evades the service of the order. If, in every case the detenu is permitted to challenge and seek the stay of the operation of the order before its execution, the very purpose of the order and the law under which it is made, will be frustrated, since the order are in operation for a limited period. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the Courts have necessary power in appropriate cases to interfere with the detention order at the pre­execution stage, but, the scope of interference is very limited. It was held that the Courts would interfere at the pre­execution stage with detention orders, only after they were satisfied of the existence of the five situations enumerated earlier. In the instant case, it is the petitioner's own contention that he has not allowed the detention order to be served on him.
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Chaudhari Rajubhai Ramanbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 5 October, 2020

38. We are of the view that the case does not appear to be falling in the categories, where pre­ execution challenge to the Detention Order ought to be permissible. The Supreme Court in "Naresh Kumar Goyal" (Supra) (a three judge Bench decision), after a comprehensive review of the case law and noticing the principles laid down in Alka Subhash Gadia's case (Supra), also referred to "Sayed Taher Bawamiya V. Joint Secretary to the Government of India and others", reported in 2000(8) SCC 630 : (a three judge Bench decision), wherein it was held that the Court in Alka Gadia's case (Supra) was also concerned with the matter, where the detention order had not been served, but, the High Court had entertained the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 32, which is discretionary in nature, should not be exercised in a case where the proposed detenu successfully evades the service of the order. If, in every case the detenu is permitted to challenge and seek the stay of the operation of the order before its execution, the very purpose of the order and the law under which it is made, will be frustrated, since the order are in operation for a limited period. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the Courts have necessary power in appropriate cases to interfere with the detention order at the pre­execution stage, but, the scope of interference is very limited. It was held that the Courts would interfere at the pre­execution stage with detention orders, only after they were satisfied of the existence of the five situations enumerated earlier. In the instant case, it is the petitioner's own contention that he has not allowed the detention order to be served on him.
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next