Ayya Alias Ayub vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 25 November, 1988
15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U.P., to show that as the material document viz a telegram sent by one person acting on behalf of the detenue in that case to the Senior Superintendent of Police was not considered by the detaining authority the order of detention was held to be vitiated in that case. Perusal of para 6 of the said judgment would show that the vital fact contained in the telegram in that case sent by one Mirazuddin acting on behalf of the detenu in that case to the Senior Superintendent of Police. Meerut, at 12.30 A.M. at night on 18-2-1988 was that the detenu in the said case had been taken away by the police at 8.00 p.m. earlier that night which would have therefore shown improbability of the detenu's participation in the incident which was alleged to have taken place at 9-10 p.m. on that night itself. The said telegram was thus a vital document which ought to have been placed before and considered by the detaining authority. It may be seen that the question whether a document which ought to be considered by the detaining authority contains vital or material fact or not would depend upon the facts in each case. As already pointed out since all the material facts contained in the reply of the detenu dated 19-12-1988 are all contained in his statement recorded on 11-3-1988 it cannot be urged that its non-consideration has vitiated the impugned order of detention apart from the fact that as already held by us, since the reply was sent beyond the period of 30 days and the grounds of detention were already, formulated on 24-12-1988 should have been considered.