Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.38 seconds)
Ravindra Kautik Patil vs State Of Gujarat on 15 December, 1999 cites

Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs Commissioner Of Police, Ahmedabad City ... on 16 December, 1988

3.1. Mr. Shah submitted further that admittedly the petitioner is involved in foreign liquor as can be seen from the case registered against him, so also the statements of the anonymous witnesses. Keeping in light the decision in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and Another as reported in JT 1988(4) SC 703, it cannot be considered as affecting public health or public order, and therefore the order suffers from the defect of non application of mind. Lastly he submitted that the statement of two witnesses were recorded on 26th and 27th February 1999. The same were verified by the detaining authority on 15-3-1999 and the order was passed on 17-3-1999. There is a delay of about 17 days in passing the order which has not been explained by the detaining authority and therefore the petitioner may be allowed, on the grounds above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 2963 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Kanuji S. Zala vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 4 May, 1999

6. Coming to the second ground regarding public order, it may be noted that the detaining authority has recorded a subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu are detrimental to public health. This being a subjective satisfaction, objective tests cannot be applied to it. In this regard the decision of Kanuji S. Zala (supra), relied upon by the learned A.G.P. Mr. Joshi, can be profitably referred to. In that case the apex court considered the decision of the apex court in case of Omprakash v. Commissioner of Police JT 1984 SC 177 and said that the observations of the court are to be understood in context of facts of that case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 60 - Full Document

Omprakash vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors. on 24 October, 1989

6. Coming to the second ground regarding public order, it may be noted that the detaining authority has recorded a subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu are detrimental to public health. This being a subjective satisfaction, objective tests cannot be applied to it. In this regard the decision of Kanuji S. Zala (supra), relied upon by the learned A.G.P. Mr. Joshi, can be profitably referred to. In that case the apex court considered the decision of the apex court in case of Omprakash v. Commissioner of Police JT 1984 SC 177 and said that the observations of the court are to be understood in context of facts of that case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Premsing @ Pallu Jesing Rajput vs State Of Gujarat on 3 March, 1999

8. Reliance is placed on decision of this High Court in Special Criminal Application No. 32 of 1980 with Special Criminal Application No. 33 and 37 of 1980 rendered by the Division Bench on 26-3-1980 and it was urged that non explanation of delay should be taken as fatal to the detention. Against this reliance is placed on decision in case of Premsingh @ Pallu Jesing Rajput v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 1999(1) GLH 648, so also in the case of Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar v. S. Ramamurthi and others AIR 1994 SC 656 and T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala AIR 1990 SC 225 to indicate that delay ipso facto will not be fatal to the detention. Delay is required to be explained only where there is gross and inordinate delay and there is a possibility of breaking of the causal connection between the activities alleged of the detenu and the order.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - D C Srivastava - Full Document

Pradeep Nikanth Paturkar vs S. Ramamurthi And Others on 24 March, 1992

The apex court again in the case of Pradip Nilkanth Paturkar (supra) considered the above case along with the case of Rajendrakumar Natwarlal Shah v. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 1255 in which it was held by the Apex Court that non explanation of delay between 2nd February and 28th May 1987 could not give rise to legitimate inference that the subjective satisfaction arrived by the District Magistrate was not genuine. It was also observed that it all depends on the nature of the acts relied on, grave and determined or less serious and corrigible, on the length of the gap, short or long, on the reason for the delay in taking preventive action, like information of participation being available only in the course of an investigation. The court ultimately concluded that each case is to be decided on the facts and circumstances appearing in a particular case. With this proposition if the facts of the present case are considered the last offence is dated 6-2-1999. It has come to the knowledge of the authorities concerned on 26/27-2-1999 and the order is passed within 16 days thereof on 17-3-1999. It has to be considered that once the authority comes to know about the same incident/offence, before proposing for a drastic action in the nature of preventive detention, the authority has to apply its mind, collect information and then make a proposal to the detaining authority. It appears that the detaining authority has verified the statements on 15-3-1999 and therefore the gap is further reduced by two days. In this view of the matter, the ground of delay in passing the order, canvassed on behalf of the petitioner also cannot be accepted. The unreported decision relied upon by Mr. Shah, is of a Division Bench of this Court rendered on March 26, 1980.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 129 - Full Document

Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 10 May, 1988

The apex court again in the case of Pradip Nilkanth Paturkar (supra) considered the above case along with the case of Rajendrakumar Natwarlal Shah v. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 1255 in which it was held by the Apex Court that non explanation of delay between 2nd February and 28th May 1987 could not give rise to legitimate inference that the subjective satisfaction arrived by the District Magistrate was not genuine. It was also observed that it all depends on the nature of the acts relied on, grave and determined or less serious and corrigible, on the length of the gap, short or long, on the reason for the delay in taking preventive action, like information of participation being available only in the course of an investigation. The court ultimately concluded that each case is to be decided on the facts and circumstances appearing in a particular case. With this proposition if the facts of the present case are considered the last offence is dated 6-2-1999. It has come to the knowledge of the authorities concerned on 26/27-2-1999 and the order is passed within 16 days thereof on 17-3-1999. It has to be considered that once the authority comes to know about the same incident/offence, before proposing for a drastic action in the nature of preventive detention, the authority has to apply its mind, collect information and then make a proposal to the detaining authority. It appears that the detaining authority has verified the statements on 15-3-1999 and therefore the gap is further reduced by two days. In this view of the matter, the ground of delay in passing the order, canvassed on behalf of the petitioner also cannot be accepted. The unreported decision relied upon by Mr. Shah, is of a Division Bench of this Court rendered on March 26, 1980.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 83 - A P Sen - Full Document
1