Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Vijaya Kumar Gujral vs Union Of India And Others on 27 May, 1987 cites

Suresh Chandra Dam vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 July, 1958

The decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Chand Chaudhary (supra) is of no help to the case of the respondents. In that case it was contended on behalf of the detenu that the declaration under S. 9(1) should have been made after giving an opportunity to the detenu to make a representation in regard to the same as the declaration was to affect his right. This contention was repelled by the Bench observing that rules of natural justice cannot be made applicable to such administrative acts as a declaration contemplated by S. 9 of the Act. The Bench went on to say that a valid law in regard to the obligation of the 'appropriate government' having been made and the obligation having been discharged by the appropriate government within the time specified by the amended law, no complaint can be made that the obligation could not be discharged except after giving due notice or prior hearing to the detenu. It was further observed that in any case post-decisional hearing was available to the detenu in the form of a representation which could always be availed of by the detenu and had been availed in that case. It is obvious that the Bench dealt with an entirely different kind of ground of attack to the declaration under S. 9(1) which ground is not available even for a challenge to an order of detention under S. 3(1). The basis for repelling that ground were also entirely different from the one as are relevant in dealing with a representation under S. 11(1) which is a post-decisional matter. It may also be pointed out here that this decision also takes note of the fact that there is a right of representation against a declaration under S. 9(1).
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1