Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)
Dilip Kumar Rajkhowa vs District Magistrate, Nowgong And Ors. on 19 February, 1981 cites

Rameshwar Lal Patwari vs State Of Bihar on 1 December, 1967

The alleged activities have nexus with the object of detention. It is difficult to predicate that the activities had no strong influencing effect to bear up and contribute to the creation of "the subjective satisfaction" of the detaining authority. The final authority to form the requisite opinion rests with the Government or the officer authorised; this Court is not an appellate authority to consider "the sufficiency of the grounds". However, detention without a trial merely on the subjective satisfaction is a serious matter. "It must require the closest scrutiny of the material on which the decision is formed, leaving no room for errors or at least avoidable errors"; as ruled in Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1303.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 38 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Mintu Bhakta vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 April, 1972

but nowhere stated that the petitioner did not attend his office during the period, nor is there any assertion in the return that the attendance register does not show regular attendance of the petitioner during his alleged abscondence. The return is neither cogent nor proper or adequate to disprove the specific allegations made twice by the petitioner. "Such a vague answer is neither a proper nor an adequate reply in disproof of the specific allegation made twice by the petitioner. That allegation, therefore, remains unanswered and must consequently be accepted in the absence of any cogent reply therein'' vide Mintu Bhakla (supra). We reach the same conclusion, Accordingly we are constrained to hold that Ground No. 1 is illusory or non-existent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Ashadevi, Wife Of Gopal Ghermal Mehta ... vs K. Shiveraj,Addl. Chief Secretary To ... on 3 November, 1978

Further, Ground No. 1 clearly indicates that the petitioner remained absconding to avoid the order of detention which is a very grave and serious allegation. We are taken aback to note from "the Dossier" produced by the Stale that the petitioner was not "absconding on the date", as his earlier detention order had been revoked by the Government. The fact that the petitioner was absconding to avoid service of his detention order was undoubtedly a vital and material fact likely to influence the mind of the authority whereas factually he was not an absconder on the said dale. The petitioner contested the correctness of the statement and claimed that he was never an absconder. The said vital and material fact was not considered by the detaining authority. If such material and vital facts likely to influence the mind of the authority were not placed before or considered by the detaining authority, it must be held that there was non-application of mind to the most material and vital facts vitiating the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority and rendered the detention invalid and illegal, as held by the Supreme Court in Ashadevi v. K. Shivraj, AIR 1979 SC, 447, Shaikh Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 2353; Suresh Mahato v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SC 728.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 102 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Suresh Mahato vs The District Magistrate, Burdwan And ... on 20 December, 1974

Further, Ground No. 1 clearly indicates that the petitioner remained absconding to avoid the order of detention which is a very grave and serious allegation. We are taken aback to note from "the Dossier" produced by the Stale that the petitioner was not "absconding on the date", as his earlier detention order had been revoked by the Government. The fact that the petitioner was absconding to avoid service of his detention order was undoubtedly a vital and material fact likely to influence the mind of the authority whereas factually he was not an absconder on the said dale. The petitioner contested the correctness of the statement and claimed that he was never an absconder. The said vital and material fact was not considered by the detaining authority. If such material and vital facts likely to influence the mind of the authority were not placed before or considered by the detaining authority, it must be held that there was non-application of mind to the most material and vital facts vitiating the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority and rendered the detention invalid and illegal, as held by the Supreme Court in Ashadevi v. K. Shivraj, AIR 1979 SC, 447, Shaikh Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 2353; Suresh Mahato v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SC 728.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 21 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1