Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Another on 14 December, 1998
In Rajammal v. State of T.N. (1999) 1 SCC 417 : 1999 Cri LJ 826, Apex Court held as follows :
Section 21 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Hitendra Nath Goswami vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 6 January, 1984
7. It is, therefore, clear that Central Government may revoke or modify a detention order notwithstanding the fact that the order has been passed by the State Government. Even if an order of detention is passed by the State Government on a representation being made or on the basis of information before it, Central Government may revoke or modify the order. Report is submitted to the Central Government for consideration of the question as to whether any revocation or modification is called for or any affirmation has to be made. Discretionary power of the Central Government under Section 11 (1) in the context of Section 3(3) is coupled with the duty to consider the report from the State Government with reasonable expedition notwithstanding the question whether any representation has been made by detenu to the State Government. (See : Hitendra Nath Goswami v. State of Assam 1984 Crl LJ 1558. Position is, therefore, clear that when there is a representation made to the Central Government, the expedition warranted in the case of State Government is also equally applicable to the Central Government.
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Mrs. Venmathi Selvam vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 June, 1998
8. Reliance has been placed on behalf of detenu in Venmathi Selvam v. State of T.N. (1998) 5 SCC 510. In this case, Apex Court held as follows :-
1