Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 144 (3.74 seconds)
Documents citing Harish Pahwa vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 18 March, 1981

Urmila Naresh Mittal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 29 October, 1996

In the case of Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. the representation made on 3rd June, 1980 from jail was received by the State Government on 4th June, 1980 but for two days no action was taken. On 6th June, 1980, comments were called for from the Customs Authorities with regard to the allegations and the comments were received on 13th June, 1980. On 17th June, 1980 the State Government referred the representation to Law Department for its opinion which was furnished on 19th June, 1980 and the representation was rejected on 24th June, 1980. The case of the State was that the representation was with the Customs authorities who were formulating the comments from 7th June, 1980 to 12th June, 1980 and that the representation was under the consideration of the Government for four days from 13th June, 1980 to 16th June, 1980, of its Law Department from 17th June, 1980 to 19th June 1980 and then again under its own consideration for six days from 19th June, 1980 to 24th June, 1980. Thus, the Supreme Court found there was no explanation at all as to why no action was taken in reference to the representation on 4th, 5th and 25th June, 1980 and that the manner in which representation made by the appellant was dealt with reveal a sorry state of affairs in the matter of consideration of representation made by persons detained without trial. It was further considered that it was not clear as to what consideration was given by the Government to the representation made on 13th June, 1980 to 16th June, 1980 and that it culminated only in a reference to the Law Department and it was not apparent as to why the Law Department has to be consulted at all. The Court further observed that it has failed to understand as to why the representation had to travel from table to table for six days before reaching the Chief Minister who was the only authority to decide the representation. The Supreme Court observed that this Court does not look with equanimity upon such delays when the liberty of a person is concerned and calling comments from other departments, seeking opinion of Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to lie without being attended to is not the type of action which the State is expected to take in a matter of such vital importance. The Supreme Court also observed that it was the duty of the State to proceed to determine representations of the character abovementioned with utmost expedition which means that the matter must be taken up for consideration as soon as such a representation is received and dealt with continuously unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for some assistance in connection with it, until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. The detention was held to be unconstitutional.
Gujarat High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs The District Magistrate, Jabalpur on 29 October, 2021

37 A two-judge Bench of this Court, in Harish Pahwa v. State of Uttar Pradesh 49, held that a representation by a detenu must be considered expeditiously and can be kept pending, only when seeking assistance is absolutely necessary. This Court was considering a detention order dated 16 May 1980, a representation by the detenu dated 3 June 1980 and the rejection of such representation on 24 June 1980, which was communicated to the detenu within two days. Justice AD Koshal held the unexplained delay as fatal to the detention by holding the following:
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 67 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Anil Kumar Agarwal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. on 11 March, 1991

11. Last ground of attack by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the fact that the petitioner was already granted bail and was not under detention and this fact was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority. All the documents supplied to the petitioner reveal that the petitioner's application for bail was rejected by the Sessions Judge and his application for bail before the High Court was pending and as such not bringing this aforesaid information before the detaining authority being vital for passing the preventive detention order and withholding of such material vitiates the said order. This point was not clearly taken initially though factually it is referred in the rejoinder affidavit. Since it goes to the root, we permitted to be raised and accordingly we called for the relevant file for examination in this respect. The objection raised on behalf of the respondents was rejected. We find that similar objection was raised in the case of Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P., (1981 Cri LJ 950 (SC) (supra) where it was held that the point was not raised in the petition but the Supreme Court held that in view of its importance and the fact that material necessary for its determination being available on record, the point could be allowed. We feel in present case also the question whether the detaining authority was supplied with the material relating to the continued detention or granting bail was there or not, being vital and is allowed. We permitted the point to be raised and accordingly the file was summoned. On perusal of the file we find that there was noting by the office addressed to the under secretary referring the detenu being released on bail on 11-5-1990 and the fact regarding the petitioner being released was placed before the detaining authority. The question which has been raised for consideration was initially that since the fact that the petitioner was enlarged on bail was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority, hence the order of detention is illegal. In defence, the learned Additional Government Advocate placed this file before us to show that there was noting and the fact that the petitioner was enlarged on bail was brought to the notice of the detaining authority prior to the passiong of the said order. The next question which arose after perusal of the file and was also raised on behalf of the petitioner was that since there was material which was placed before the authority concerned, and the copy of which was not supplied to the petitioner, the order of detention vitiates on account of lack of proper opportunity to the petitioner in making the representation in respect of the fact which was the foundation and essential fact that constitute the opinion for directing the detention of the petitioner under the preventive detention law. The principle that the material relevant for formation of opinion for preventive detention, if not supplied to the detenu is fatal and the same has not been disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The argument is that actually the order of detention looking to the grounds of detention itself reveals that the fact that the petitioner was released on bail was not the fact which constituted the formation of the opinion, of the detaining authority. He further urged that the formation of opinion for the ground of detention in other manner was there and thus even though these materials before the authority concerned, even if were not supplied, could not be fatal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - A P Misra - Full Document

Birendra Kumar Rai vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 February, 1992

In a given case as in the case of Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 1126 : (1981 Cri LJ 758), even three days' delay could be held to be bad in law while in other case even larger number of days be not held to be bad. The Court has to scrutinise facts of each case keeping in view the curtailment of the liberty of a man on one side and conduct of the respondent authorities, whether latter's conduct of inaction, callousness, casualness, slackness are such which amount to curbing detenu's further right of being set at liberty at an early date, if that be so, in effect it amounts to curtailment of detenu's right to liberty itself. Thus, it has to be seen whether the authorities while disposing of representation is showing any slackness, callousness, casualness, inaction or is making leisurely treatment in disposal of the representation. For this we examined the file from the original records which were placed before us. From the records, we find that the petitioner submitted his representation on 22nd December, 1990, which was forwarded to the authority concerned on the next date, though it was a Sunday. The said representation was received in the Ministry of Finance on the 27th December, 1990. Thereafter, the same was sent to Pt. NDPS which was received on 31st December, 1990 (29th and 30th December, 1990, being Saturday and Sunday respectively). On the same day it was sent to the Deputy Director, Narcotic Bureau, Varanasi, and was received in the office at Varanasi on 10th January, 1991. On the very next day i.e. 11th January, 1991, the documents as desired was posted at Delhi and was received back in Delhi on the 14th January, 1991. On 17th January the Under Secretary examined and placed it before the Detaining Authority. The detaining authority again placed the same before the Secretary, Government of India and on 18th January, 1991, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Finance Minister. There are two dates on which argument was raised regarding delay in disposal even after these dates were disclosed from the record. The first set of days is between 23rd December to 27th December, 1990, when the Superintendent, District Jail, Ghazipur forwarded the representation and was received in the Ministry of Finance, and other from 1st January, 1991 when it was sent by Pt. NDPS, Delhi to 10th January, 1991, on which date it was received in the office of Dy. Director, Narcotic Bureau, Varanasi. Regarding the first set of days it is revealed from the record that the said representation was sent through the Messenger Sri Indra Prakash Lal Srivastava of Ghazipur District Jail, who received the same on 23rd December, 1990. He carried two letters with him. One was to be delivered at Lucknow and the other (petitioner's representation with comment) at Delhi. He proceeded to Gorakhpur his home on 24th December, 1990, on his own by a private bus. 25th December was a holiday on account of X-Mas and on 26th December he delivered the letter at Lucknow, on the way meant for I.G., Prison, Lucknow and then reached Delhi and delivered the letter with the representation in the office of the Joint Secretary, Finance, Government of India on 27th December, 1990. Regarding the second set of dates, according to the respondents it was despatched on 1st January, 1991 by post from Delhi and was only received in Varanasi on 10th January, 1991. From a perusal of the letter dated 11th January, 1991, sent back along with the comment annexed a reference was made that in future, representation be sent by speed post to avoid delay. The delay could only be on account of it being sent by ordinary post and not speed post, Further, according to learned Counsel for the respondent the delay of delivery by ordinary post would only be on account of riots during that period in Varanasi.
Allahabad High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - A P Misra - Full Document

Vinod vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 23 April, 1998

In the case of Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. (supra) AIR 1981 SC 1126, the Apex Cort while considering the question of inordinate and unexplained delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu observed that the order of detention is dated 16th May, 1980 and the representation made by the appellant against it from Varanasi Jail bears date the 3rd June, 1980. The State Government received the representation on the 4th June, 1980 but for two days no action was taken in connection with it. On the 6th of June, 1980 comments were called for from the Customs authorities with regard to the allegations made in the representation and such comments were received by the State Government on the 13th June, 1980. On the 17th of June, 1980, the State Government referred the representation to its Law Department for its opinion which was furnished on the 19th of June, 1980. The rejection of the representation was ordered on the 24th of June, 1980 and it was communicated to the jail authorities two days later.
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - P K Jain - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next