Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (1.51 seconds)Rajammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Another on 14 December, 1998
In a subsequent judgment in the case of Rajammal
Vs. State of T.N. & Anr. (1999) 1 SCC 417, a three
Judge Bench of this Court, relying on the ratio of the
Constitution Bench decision in Abdulla Kunhi,
reiterated the same principles. From Para 9 at page 421
of the report, it would appear that in the case of
Rajammal, the concerned Minister, while on tour,
received the file after 9.2.1998 and then passed the
order on 14.2.1998. No explanation was offered for this
delay of about five days. This Court held that such
delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu [see
para 11 at page 422].
Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh vs Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad And Ors on 13 February, 1996
In another subsequent judgment of this Court in
the case of Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh Vs. Distt.
Magistrate, Ahmedabad & Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 194, this
Court while reiterating the aforesaid principles, found
that representation was received by the Central
Government on 21st September, 1995 and then comments
were called for from the State Government and the same
were received by the Central Government on 18th October,
1995 and the representation was rejected on 19th
October, 1995. This Court held in para 22 of the
judgment at page 204 that the internal movement of the
file thus took four days and this Court found that this
inaction in taking up the representation for six days
is unexplained and the mere ground was that there were
7
forty or fifty representations pending for disposal is
not a valid justification. This Court found that such
delay voids the continued detention of the detenus and
the detention order was quashed.
1