Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)Ahamed Nassar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 14 October, 1999
4. Ld. Advocate Mr. Tirmizi for the petitioner raised various contentions alleging the order of detention and contended that the order impugned is vitiated on the ground that without even filing of the prosecution, detaining authority came to subjective satisfaction that even if the prosecution is lodged, the detenu was likely to be released on bail and was likely to continue his activity. The second contention raised in respect of delay caused in passing of the order. The raid which was carried out according to the ld. advocate for the petitioner on 19.12.2002 and the order of detention was passed on 22.2.2003. According to the ld. advocate, this delay is fatal for the passing of this order of detention against the petitioner and the petition is required to be allowed on this ground alone. The next ground which was urged was in respect of illegible copies of the documents supplied to the petitioner which was relied upon by the detaining authority for which though effective representation was made to the Secretary, Civil Supply Department on 10.5.2003, no legible copies were made available to the petitioner, therefore, in view of the ld. advocate for the petitioner, the order was vitiated. For his contentions, ld. advocate has relied upon certain decisions of this court and the Apex Court, mainly in the matter of Amritlal and other v. Union Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Others as reported in AIR 2000 SC 3675. As against this, ld. AGP Ms. Panchal has controverted vehemently the contentions urged on the ground that the order is vitiated because the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail for which, she has relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court, one in the matter of Meena Jayendra Thakur vs. Union of India and others, as reported in (1999)8 SCC p. 177 and in the matter of Ahamed Nassar vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, as reported in (1999)8 SCC p. 473. It was argued that basing his opinion on the material produced, the detaining authority come to a correct conclusion that petitioner was likely to be released on bail and to continue his activities. So far as the ground of delay is concerned, it was urged that this contention was raised recently by way of amendment in the petition and that cannot be met with unless proper affidavit is filed. It was also stated that the copies which were supplied to the detenu were legible copies and those copies which complained of, are the copies of the record in possession of the petitioner.
Meena Jayendra Thakur vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 September, 1999
4. Ld. Advocate Mr. Tirmizi for the petitioner raised various contentions alleging the order of detention and contended that the order impugned is vitiated on the ground that without even filing of the prosecution, detaining authority came to subjective satisfaction that even if the prosecution is lodged, the detenu was likely to be released on bail and was likely to continue his activity. The second contention raised in respect of delay caused in passing of the order. The raid which was carried out according to the ld. advocate for the petitioner on 19.12.2002 and the order of detention was passed on 22.2.2003. According to the ld. advocate, this delay is fatal for the passing of this order of detention against the petitioner and the petition is required to be allowed on this ground alone. The next ground which was urged was in respect of illegible copies of the documents supplied to the petitioner which was relied upon by the detaining authority for which though effective representation was made to the Secretary, Civil Supply Department on 10.5.2003, no legible copies were made available to the petitioner, therefore, in view of the ld. advocate for the petitioner, the order was vitiated. For his contentions, ld. advocate has relied upon certain decisions of this court and the Apex Court, mainly in the matter of Amritlal and other v. Union Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Others as reported in AIR 2000 SC 3675. As against this, ld. AGP Ms. Panchal has controverted vehemently the contentions urged on the ground that the order is vitiated because the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail for which, she has relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court, one in the matter of Meena Jayendra Thakur vs. Union of India and others, as reported in (1999)8 SCC p. 177 and in the matter of Ahamed Nassar vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, as reported in (1999)8 SCC p. 473. It was argued that basing his opinion on the material produced, the detaining authority come to a correct conclusion that petitioner was likely to be released on bail and to continue his activities. So far as the ground of delay is concerned, it was urged that this contention was raised recently by way of amendment in the petition and that cannot be met with unless proper affidavit is filed. It was also stated that the copies which were supplied to the detenu were legible copies and those copies which complained of, are the copies of the record in possession of the petitioner.
Ichhu Devi Choraria vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 September, 1980
"11. We are of the view that the High Court erred in accepting the respondents' submissions and rejected the appellant's writ application. This Court has repeatedly held that the law permitting preventive detention must be meticulously followed both substantively and procedurally by the detaining authority. (See Icchu Choraria v. Union of India; Vijay Marain Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR at p. 1345; Hem Lall Bhandari v. State of Sikkim, AIR at p. 766; and Ayya v. State of U.P., AIR at pp. 364, 367.) The fact of this case show a breach of both.
Vijay Narain Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 April, 1984
"11. We are of the view that the High Court erred in accepting the respondents' submissions and rejected the appellant's writ application. This Court has repeatedly held that the law permitting preventive detention must be meticulously followed both substantively and procedurally by the detaining authority. (See Icchu Choraria v. Union of India; Vijay Marain Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR at p. 1345; Hem Lall Bhandari v. State of Sikkim, AIR at p. 766; and Ayya v. State of U.P., AIR at pp. 364, 367.) The fact of this case show a breach of both.
Hem Lall Bhandari vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 28 January, 1987
"11. We are of the view that the High Court erred in accepting the respondents' submissions and rejected the appellant's writ application. This Court has repeatedly held that the law permitting preventive detention must be meticulously followed both substantively and procedurally by the detaining authority. (See Icchu Choraria v. Union of India; Vijay Marain Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR at p. 1345; Hem Lall Bhandari v. State of Sikkim, AIR at p. 766; and Ayya v. State of U.P., AIR at pp. 364, 367.) The fact of this case show a breach of both.
Ayya Alias Ayub vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 25 November, 1988
"11. We are of the view that the High Court erred in accepting the respondents' submissions and rejected the appellant's writ application. This Court has repeatedly held that the law permitting preventive detention must be meticulously followed both substantively and procedurally by the detaining authority. (See Icchu Choraria v. Union of India; Vijay Marain Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR at p. 1345; Hem Lall Bhandari v. State of Sikkim, AIR at p. 766; and Ayya v. State of U.P., AIR at pp. 364, 367.) The fact of this case show a breach of both.
Chowdarapu Raghunandan vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 15 March, 2002
In the matter of Chowdarapu Raghunandan v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors, reported in (2002)3 SCC p. 754, in para-13 the Apex Court has observed as under:
Section 3 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Rajesh Gulati vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Anr on 29 August, 2002
In the matter of Rajesh Gulati vs. Govt. of NCT Delhi and anr., as reported in (2002) 7 SCC 129, the Apex Court observed as under in paras-11 and 12 of the decision:
1