Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (2.03 seconds)
Documents citing Meena Jayendra Thakur vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 September, 1999

Vahidbhai Saiyadbhai Sheikh vs State Of Gujarat on 28 August, 2003

4. Ld. Advocate Mr. Tirmizi for the petitioner raised various contentions alleging the order of detention and contended that the order impugned is vitiated on the ground that without even filing of the prosecution, detaining authority came to subjective satisfaction that even if the prosecution is lodged, the detenu was likely to be released on bail and was likely to continue his activity. The second contention raised in respect of delay caused in passing of the order. The raid which was carried out according to the ld. advocate for the petitioner on 19.12.2002 and the order of detention was passed on 22.2.2003. According to the ld. advocate, this delay is fatal for the passing of this order of detention against the petitioner and the petition is required to be allowed on this ground alone. The next ground which was urged was in respect of illegible copies of the documents supplied to the petitioner which was relied upon by the detaining authority for which though effective representation was made to the Secretary, Civil Supply Department on 10.5.2003, no legible copies were made available to the petitioner, therefore, in view of the ld. advocate for the petitioner, the order was vitiated. For his contentions, ld. advocate has relied upon certain decisions of this court and the Apex Court, mainly in the matter of Amritlal and other v. Union Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Others as reported in AIR 2000 SC 3675. As against this, ld. AGP Ms. Panchal has controverted vehemently the contentions urged on the ground that the order is vitiated because the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail for which, she has relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court, one in the matter of Meena Jayendra Thakur vs. Union of India and others, as reported in (1999)8 SCC p. 177 and in the matter of Ahamed Nassar vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, as reported in (1999)8 SCC p. 473. It was argued that basing his opinion on the material produced, the detaining authority come to a correct conclusion that petitioner was likely to be released on bail and to continue his activities. So far as the ground of delay is concerned, it was urged that this contention was raised recently by way of amendment in the petition and that cannot be met with unless proper affidavit is filed. It was also stated that the copies which were supplied to the detenu were legible copies and those copies which complained of, are the copies of the record in possession of the petitioner.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 23 - J R Vora - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shakil Ahmed Abdul Muttalib on 31 March, 2000

9. The decision of Division Bench of this High Court in the case of SIDIQ HAJI ISMAIL (supra) stands impliedly overruled by the Apex Court in view of the decision in the case of MEENA JAYENDRA THAKUR vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in 1999 (6) SCALE 133, and the decision in the case of SIDIQU HAJI ISMAIL (supra) now is no longer a good law insofar as it holds that the detenu has no specific right to be informed that he has a right to make a representation to the authority making a declaration under section 9(1) of the Act and that right to make representation under Art. 22(5) is not affected even if he is not so informed by the author of the declaration.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tej Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 20 April, 2001

20. Even otherwise in case of an infraction of the right of detenu under Article 22 merely because the detaining authority or the authority approving or confirming the detention had not informed the detenu as to his right of representation against his detention, but in our considered view it will not by itself vitiate the initial order of detention. Thus as expounded in Meena Jayendra Thakur v. Union of India (supra) the infraction of the constitutional right to make a representation on account of non-intimating the detenu about his right to make a representation or the opinion of the Advisory Board and the order of detention not being made within the period prescribed under law does not get into the satisfaction of the detaining authority while making an order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Act. If the detaining authority on the basis of the materials before it did arrive at its satisfaction with regard to the necessity for passing an order of detention and the order is passed thereafter the same cannot be held to be void because of a subsequent infraction of the detenu's right or of non-compliance with the procedure porescrtbed under law. But it does not affect the validity of the order of detention Itself issued under Section 3(1) of the Act by the detaining authority. In this view of the matter, the question of setting aside the order of detention impugned herein does not arise.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 73 - Cited by 6 - K S Rathore - Full Document

Inder vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 April, 2001

6. Shri Mohd. Rafiq, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents authorities while opposing the contentions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, contended inter alia that there has been consideration of sufficient material as detailed out in the grounds of detention in an elaborate manner and they have been carefully examined by the detaining authority on the basis of particulars bearing on the necessity as to the detention and therefore, both the District Magistrate so also State Government had a subjective satisfaction before issuing detention order against the detenu (petitioner). Shri Rafiq cited the decisions in (1) Ahmed Nassar v. State of Tamilnadu (2) Meena Jayendra Thakur v. Union of India and (3) Phalkoo v. State of Rajasthan 2001 (1) RLR 135.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - K S Rathore - Full Document

Maqsood Yusuf Merchant vs Union Of India (Uoi) Thru. The Secretary on 19 May, 2008

Meena Jayendra Thakur v. UOI explicitly clarifies that the relevant point in time is the date on which the impugned order was passed, and not subsequent events. Their Lordships opined thus - "If the detaining authority on the basis of the materials before him did arrive at his satisfaction with regard to the necessity for passing an order of detention and the order is passed thereafter, the same cannot be held to be void because of a subsequent infraction of the detenu's right or of non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under law. On such infraction and for non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under law, the further detention becomes illegal. But it does not affect the validity of the order of detention itself issued under Section 3(1) of the Act by the detaining authority."
Delhi High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 12 - V Sen - Full Document

Shri Atul Sunderji Dadhia vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 11 April, 2007

In Meena Jayendra Thakurs case (supra) the Supreme Court was considering somewhat similar case where the right of a detenu to make representation was held to be most valuable right conferred upon him by Article 22 of the Constitution and it was observed that if there was any infringement of such right then certainly the detenu was held to be entitled to be released forthwith. In that case the legality of the order of detention as well as continued detention was under challenge. By the time the order of High Court was carried to the Supreme Court the period of detention had already been completed, still the Supreme Court considered the challenge in view of the proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. The relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 8 and 10 reads thus:
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - D B Bhosale - Full Document

Mr. Dunstan Savio Mcness @ Tony vs Shri R.H. Mendonca, The Commissioner Of ... on 28 August, 2000

The Apex Court has observed in paragraph 8 itself that the authority issuing declaration under section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA has the necessary powers to revoke the declaration on a representation being made by the detenu against such declaration and, therefore, it was required of an officer issuing the declaration under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act to inform the detenu that he has right to make representation to him and having not done that, the Apex Court observed that if the detenu is not intimated of his right to make a representation to the authority issuing declaration under Section 9(1) then certainly his valuable constitutional right gets infringed. In the present group cases, since the detention order passed by authority empowered under Section 3(2) was served after approval by the State Government, the authority empowered under Section 3(2) who passed the order ceased to have power to revoke the order of detention and, therefore. Meena Thakur's case (supra) also does not support the petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Smt. Satif Iqbal vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 11 January, 2005

Undoubtedly, the retraction in relation to the statement recorded on 6.2.2004 was given on 7.2.2004. Being so, it would refer to only one statement i.e. statement of 6.2.2004 and retraction application filed on 7.2.2004 obviously relate to the statement made subsequent to 7.2.2004. Being so, the contention that the statements of 12.2.2004 and 25.2.2004 were retracted, cannot be accepted without any contention in that regard being raised in the petition and even no material being placed before us by the petitioner. The learned advocate for the respondents, in that regard, has also justified in drawing attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Meena Jayendra Thakur v. Union of India and Ors., , wherein, while dealing with the issue as to whether the subjective satisfaction of the detention order can be issued for the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act or not, had held that once statements were not retracted no fault can be found with the detention order passed on the basis of such statements. In that case, the High Court had rejected the contention on behalf of the detenu that the statements made and recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot form the sole basis for subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for the order of detention. While refusing to interfere in the said finding of the High Court, it was observed that, apart from the retracted statements, further statements which are not retracted clearly justified the order of detention. Once it is apparent that the statements of 12.2.2004 and 25.2.2004 were not retracted and in those statements the detenu had confirmed the facts stated in the statement of 6.2.2004, no fault can be found with the satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority on the basis of the statement of detenu recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 12.2.2004 and 25.2.2004.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next