Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.29 seconds)
Rajesh Himatlal Sheth vs State Of Gujarat And 2 Ors. on 27 March, 2006 cites

Additional Secretary To The Government ... vs Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia And Anr on 20 December, 1990

21. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in the pre-execution stage also the present petition is maintainable and the said order of detention is illegal, based on vague, extraneous , non-existent and irrelevant grounds and passed without application of mind to the true facts and circumstances and therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside as it falls squarely within the exceptions as carved out in by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Additional Secretary, Government of India v. Alka Subhash Gadia reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 496. In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principle regarding pre-detention in para 30 on page 520 which reads as under: (second line from bottom) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thirdly, and this is more important, it is not correct to say that the courts have no power to entertain grievances against any detention order prior to its execution. The courts have the necessary power and they have used it in proper cases as has been pointed out above, although such cases have been few and the grounds on which the Courts have interfered with them at the pre-execution stage are necessarily very limited in scope and number, viz., where the courts are prima facie satisfied (i) that the impugned order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed, (ii) that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person, (iii) that it is passed for a wrong Page 0813 purpose, (iv) that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds or (v) that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so. The refusal by the courts to use their extraordinary powers of judicial review to interfere with the detention orders prior to their execution on any other ground does not amount to the abandonment of the said power or to their denial to the proposed detenu, but prevents their abuse and the perversion of the law in question.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 570 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 12 May, 1993

In view of the judgement of this Court in the case of Mukesh Himatlal Sheth v. State (supra) and other cases which I have referred to hereinabove particularly judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alka Subhash Gadia (supra), Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and Another v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (supra) and judgement of this Court in the case of H.A. Grover v. State (supra) and other principles laid down which I have discussed earlier, the purported action of the respondent authorities is liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are restrained from executing and implementing detention order No. 2830 of 2005 dated 18.10.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Patan, - respondent No. 2 whereby the authorities are seeking to detain the petitioner under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 and the said impugned order namely order No. 2830 of 2005 dated 18.10.2005 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 152 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next