Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)
Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal on 7 November, 1968 cites

The State Of Bombay vs Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya on 25 January, 1951

It appears to us that ground no. 2 is extremely vague. Ground no. 2 states "You have become a menace to the society and there have been disturbances and confusion in the lives of peaceful citizens of Baraset and Khardah P.S. areas under 24-Parganas District and the inhabitants thereof are in constant dread of disturbances of public order." It is manifest that this ground is extremely vague and gives no particulars to enable the petitioner to make an adequate representation against the order of detention and thus infringes the constitutional safeguard provided under Art 22 ( 5 ) Reference may be made in this connection to the decision of this court in the state of Bombay v. Alma Ram ion of this Court in The State Sridhar Vaidva(1) in which Kania of Bombay v. Atma Ram C.J. observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 283 - H J Kania - Full Document

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State Of Bihar And Others on 7 September, 1965

The argument was, however, stressed by Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the respondent that the other grounds, viz., (c) and (d) mentioned in the order of the District Magistrate dated January 20, 1968 are more serious in character and may be held prejudicial to public order. We shall assume in favour of the respondent that grounds (c) and (d) are matters prejudicial to: public order. But even upon that assumption the order of detention must be held to be illegal. It is now well-established that even if any one of the grounds or reasons that led to the satisfaction is irrelevant, the order of detention would be invalid even if there were other relevant grounds, because it can never be certain to what extent the bad reasons operated on the mind of the authority concerned or whether the detention order would have been made at all if only one or two good reasons had been before them.--(See the decisions of this Court in Shibban Lal Saksena v. The State of Uttar Pradesh(1) and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar(2). For these reasons we hold that the order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Howrah under s. 3(2) of the Act dated January 20, 1968 against petitioner Subhas Chandra Bose alias Kanta Bose and the consequent order made by the Governor dated March 30, 1968 confirming the order of detention under s. 11 (1 ) of the Act must be declared to be illegal and accordingly the petitioner. Subhas Chandra Bose alias Kanta Bose is entitled to be released from custody forthwith.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 2627 - A K Sarkar - Full Document
1   2 Next