Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)
Syed Asia Andrabi vs State Of J&K & Anr (2010(Ii) S. L. J on 19 May, 2011 cites

Wasiuddin Ahmed vs District Magistrate, Aligarh, U.P. And ... on 16 October, 1981

25. The past conduct or antecedent history of a person can appropriately be taken into account in making a detention order. It is indeed usually from prior events showing tendencies or inclination of a man that an inference is drawn whether he is likely in the future to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Of course, such prejudicial conduct or antecedent history should ordinarily be proximate in point of time and should have a rational connection with the conclusion that the detention of the person is necessary. It is true that the past conduct and antecedents are to be taken note of but when the past conduct and antecedents have been taken note of in the order of detention which has been quashed, same position could not be taken note of for deriving satisfaction for passing the fresh order of detention as is the law laid down in the judgment AIR 1989 SC 1234 referred above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 30 - A P Sen - Full Document

Ramesh vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 4 August, 1989

It is, therefore, clear that an order of detention cannot be made after considering the previous grounds of detention when the same had been quashed by the Court, and if such previous grounds of detention are taken into consideration while forming the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in making a detention order, the order of detention will be vitiated. It is of no consequence if the further fresh facts disclosed in the grounds of the impugned detention order have been considered. Again same position has been dealt with in the case Ramesh Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1989 SC 1881). Para 10 is relevant to be quoted:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 53 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Kshetra Gogoi vs State Of Assam on 19 September, 1969

It has further been learnt through reliable source that you are contemplating to launch a fresh phase of agitation with the assistance of your likeminded associates. In this regard you are believed to have discussed some secret strategy with your colleagues. During the meetings, reportedly you have stressed upon them to continue their secessionist activities and aroused anti India sentiments in them. You have further reported to have instigated them to strengthen the secessionist network and to remain in a state of preparedness for launching fresh agitation, once you are released from jail. You are believed to have discussed some new strategy with your colleagues and party carders regarding your designs to disturb the public order during the coming summer. As in the past, you are believed to be a major threat to the law and order, if you remain at large. During the previous agitations, your activities have remained highly objectionable and provocative and there is a well founded belief, based on the reports, that if you are allowed to remain at large at this stage, it will affect the maintenance of security of state adversely. It is clear that all the aforesaid facts are relatable to the period when the detenue was in custody in connection with earlier order of detention and it is also clear that the detenue was not released after the earlier order of detention was quashed, instead, while in custody, impugned order of detention was executed. whether on such grounds order of detention is valid, has to be answered in negative in view of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the judgment captioned Kshetra Gogoi Vs. State of Assam (AIR 1970 SC 1664). It shall be quite relevant to quote following sub-para of para 4 of the said judgment:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 18 - V Bhargava - Full Document

??!?7{? ?Z?? Kgr?U????>Quf ?L?Lr?[#? ? ... vs ?J?1 -- ?Q [_?L-?M* *?P?Nf???Ks??X on 25 September, 2008

In support of this contention, learned counsel has relied on the judgments captioned Abdul Rashid Saraf Vs. State & another (S.L. J. 1988 J&K 346) and Ghulam Muhammad Hajam Vs. State of J&K (S. L. J. 1991 J&K 364). In both the two judgments it has been held that supply of detention order to the detenue is mandatory, failure renders the detention illegal. In the backdrop of the factual and legal position as noticed, only conclusion in-keeping therewith is that the order of detention is unsustainable so is quashed. Detenue be released provided not required in connection with any other case. Detention records as produced be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Mohammad Yaqoob Mir) Judge 19.05.2011 Srinagar
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 66 - M S Shah - Full Document
1