Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 64 (0.30 seconds)Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema vs B.B. Gujaral & Anr on 4 May, 1981
L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral (supra) the Division Bench has observed that while examining the question with regard to delay in considering the representation one has to be pragmatic and one must have an eye on the realities of life. When it is stated that every day's delay should be explained if it is required to be understood in pragmatic manner. Otherwise one may ask why not explain the delay of every hour and why not explain the delay minute by minute. All that is required to be seen is as to whether the concerned authority has shown due promptness. Even while judging due promptness on the part of the authorities concerned, the fact that the authority concerned is working in the system where to work in tardy and prolonged fashion has become the rule of life.
Smt. Pushpa vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 1979
In the case of Smt. Pushpa v. Union of India the Supreme Court was dealing with the case under COFEPOSA Act. In this case, the first representation made on 23rd February 1979 was rejected on 21st March, 1979 and it was submitted that there was delay of nearly one month in applying mind to the representation of the detenu.
The National Security Act, 1980
Rama Dhondu Borade vs V.K. Saraf, Commissioner Of Police & Ors on 5 May, 1989
In this regard the principle enunciated in R.D. Borade v. V.K. Saraf (supra) decided by a Bench of two Judges has already been discussed in the earlier part of this order, which also lays down the principle that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with due promptitude and diligence and with the sense of urgency and without avoidable delay and what is the reasonable delay depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
State Of U.P vs Shakeel Ahmed on 28 November, 1995
In State of U.P. v. Shakeel Ahmed (decided by a Bench of two Judges) the Supreme Court was concerned with a case under COFEPOSA Act. The detention order had been set aside by the High Court on the ground of delay in non-consideration of representation for one month, i.e., from 20th February 1990 to 15th March, 1990 which was not explained. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in setting aside the order of detention. However, in this case, the details with regard to the explanation are not mentioned for the period 20th February, 1990 to 15th March, 1990 and the Supreme Court also considered that the supply of the report of the sponsoring authority was not mandatory and in the facts of this case the delay of 23 days in disposal of the representation was not held to be fatal.
State Of Tamil Nadu And Another vs C. Subramani And Ors. on 8 September, 1992
In State of Tamil Nadu v. C. Subramani it was held that in the case of preventive detention while dealing with the question of delay in considering the representation inference of delay cannot be drawn unless it is shown that the authorities dealing with the representation have adopted an attitude of leisureliness, supine indifference, slackness, unduly protracted procrastination or callous attitude.
Kamlabai (Smt) vs Commissioner Of Police, Nagpur And Ors. on 30 April, 1993
In Kamlabai v. Commissioner of Police was held that the delay by itself is not a ground which proves to be fatal, if there is an explanation. However, the short delay cannot be given undue importance having regard to the administrative actions and in the facts of that case it was held that the delay was not so inordinate as to warrant interference. The representation dated 11th May, 1992 was received in the department on 14th May, 1992, later it was sent to the Home Minister and reply was given to the detenu on 26th May, 1992. It has been stated that the Government of India had sent wireless message on 19th May 1992, asking certain information which was sent on 21st May 1992, and again a wireless message was given on 13th July, 1992 and on 15th July, 1992 the matter was concluded by the Government of India and therefore, the submission was that from 18th June 1992 to 13th July, 1992 there was no explanation.