Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Section 7 in The Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 [Entire Act]
Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary Government ... on 12 April, 1985
In this connection, decisions of the Supreme Court in 1985 SCC 144 ; Prakash Chandra Mahto v. Commissioner and Secretary and Ors. ; Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ; N. Meera Rani v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. may be seen. It is now well-settled, in view of a number of decisions of the Supreme Court including ones referred to, that in the event of non-application of mind of the detaining authority, while dealing with the detention order cannot be sustained.
Anant Sakharam Raut & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. Etc on 14 November, 1986
In this connection, decisions of the Supreme Court in 1985 SCC 144 ; Prakash Chandra Mahto v. Commissioner and Secretary and Ors. ; Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ; N. Meera Rani v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. may be seen. It is now well-settled, in view of a number of decisions of the Supreme Court including ones referred to, that in the event of non-application of mind of the detaining authority, while dealing with the detention order cannot be sustained.
N. Meera Rani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 22 August, 1989
In this connection, decisions of the Supreme Court in 1985 SCC 144 ; Prakash Chandra Mahto v. Commissioner and Secretary and Ors. ; Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ; N. Meera Rani v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. may be seen. It is now well-settled, in view of a number of decisions of the Supreme Court including ones referred to, that in the event of non-application of mind of the detaining authority, while dealing with the detention order cannot be sustained.
Satya Deo Prasad Gupta vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 27 November, 1974
10. It is not in controversy that the representation of the petitioner Sled on 28-9-1989, was finally disposed of on 21-11-1989 by the State Government, i.e. much after the order of confirmation of the detention was passed. The delay in disposing of the representation has been sought to be explained in the counter affidavit that due to the strike of the non-gazetted employees of the State Government, it could not be disposed of earlier. This can hardly be a ground for explaining the delay as officials and authorities, who were to deal with the representation, etc. were not on strike. There was, therefore, no special reason/compelling circumstances to dispose of the representation within a reasonable time. Thus, so this ground also the order of detention cannot be sustained (See , Satya Deo Prasad Gupta v. State of Bihar ,
Debi Lall Mohto v. State of Bihar and Aslam Zahire Ahmad Shaik v. Union of India.
Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 April, 1989
10. It is not in controversy that the representation of the petitioner Sled on 28-9-1989, was finally disposed of on 21-11-1989 by the State Government, i.e. much after the order of confirmation of the detention was passed. The delay in disposing of the representation has been sought to be explained in the counter affidavit that due to the strike of the non-gazetted employees of the State Government, it could not be disposed of earlier. This can hardly be a ground for explaining the delay as officials and authorities, who were to deal with the representation, etc. were not on strike. There was, therefore, no special reason/compelling circumstances to dispose of the representation within a reasonable time. Thus, so this ground also the order of detention cannot be sustained (See , Satya Deo Prasad Gupta v. State of Bihar ,
Debi Lall Mohto v. State of Bihar and Aslam Zahire Ahmad Shaik v. Union of India.
Section 2 in The Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 [Entire Act]
Sk. Sekawat vs The State Of West Bengal on 24 September, 1974
6. Now, in support of the first contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court wherein a similar point arose for consideration. Following the principles laid down in an earlier decision their Lordship in Sk. Sekawat v. State of West Bengal observed that:
Section 22 in The Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 [Entire Act]
1