Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
Binoy @ Gillappi vs State Of Kerala on 14 November, 2016 cites

Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 October, 2010

Hence, there is no merit in his submission that there is denial of natural justice and that the order is vitiated due to audi alteram partem rule . But as mentioned above, a reading of Ext.P1 show cause notice as well his reply to the same and Ext.P3 would show that the authority approached the matter with an open mind and also with an impartial attitude evaluated the issue with all fairness and concluded that an order restricting his movement was highly essential to maintain public tranquility and a peaceful atmosphere in the locality as a precautionary measure, as WPC 17660/2017 14 he was in the habit of indulging in very serious criminal activities causing disturbance to the general public affecting public order. The argument that he was not given an opportunity to prove his innocence before issuing the order so as to vitiate the same is without any merits and it could correctly be held that there is absolutely no violation of natural justice and his free movement was not restricted illegally by the authority. It is also to be noted that in Ext.P3 order clear and convincing reasonings have been given by the authority and hence the dictum laid down in Oryx Fisheries Private Ltd. v. Union of India and Others [2010 (13)SCC 427] that natural justice is denied if reasonable opportunity is not given to establish innocence by making objections to the show-cause notice, is not applicable for the reasons mentioned above and the order under challenge is not vitiated by unfairness or bias in this regard .
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 668 - Full Document

Radhika B vs State Of Kerala on 10 March, 2014

12. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that Crime No.719/2011 was earlier considered by the detaining authority so as to pass a detention order against him on an earlier occasion i.e. on 27.1.2011, but the same was set aside by this Court in the petition filed by him as W.P.(Crl) 153/2017. But in Radhika B. v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2015(2) KHC 183] a Full Bench of this Court has held that revocation of an order of detention does not take away the prior prejudicial acts of the detenu, that were counted for prior detention from being counted again to impose another order of detention. Applying the said declaration of law no defect could be attributed against the authority in accepting Crime No.719/2011 again by the authority to pass the order of detention.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - B M Joseph - Full Document
1   2 Next