Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (2.06 seconds)Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 April, 1989
The requirement, however, is that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. This has been emphasised and re-emphasised by a series of decisions of this Court. See Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of W.B. (1970) 1 SCC 219 : (1970 Cri LJ 743); Francis Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra (1980) 2 SCC 275 : (1980 Cri LJ 548); Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police (1989) 3 SCC 173 ; (AIR 1989 SC 1861) and Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India (1989) 3 SCC 277: (1989 Cri LJ 1447).(Para 12)
In this case, admittedly, the representation dated 14-1-1998 was disposed of by communication dated 4-3-1998 and there was more than two months' delay in disposal of the representation. No explanation was offered by the 2nd respondent for the delay in spite of the specific contention in the O.P. regarding inordinate delay as raised in Ground 'L' of the O.P. No explanation was offered in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, there is no explanation at all. On this ground alone the detention is liable to be set aside. Since there is unexplained inordinate delay in disposal of representation, (here is violation of the constitututional safeguards and on this ground alone we are constrained to set aside the detention order.
Abdu Salam @ Thiyyan S/O Thiyyan ... vs Union Of India And Others on 17 April, 1990
Considering the above cases in Abdul Salam v. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 15 : (1990 Cri LJ 1502) the Supreme Court held that it will depend upon the facts of each case and no relief can be laid down.
Tara Chand vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 13 February, 1980
In Tata Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1980) 2 SCC 321: (1980 Cri LJ 1015) it was held by the Supreme Court that:
Shyam Ambalal Siroya vs Union Of India And Others on 20 February, 1980
In Shyam Ambalal Siroya v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 346: (1980 Cri LJ 555) it was held that (at page 556 of Cri LJ):
K.M. Abdulla Kunhi And B.L. Abdul Khader vs Union Of India And Ors., State Of ... on 23 January, 1991
In K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 476 : (1991 Cri LJ 790) a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows (at page 795 of Cri LJ) :
Jayanarayan Sukul vs State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1969
The requirement, however, is that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. This has been emphasised and re-emphasised by a series of decisions of this Court. See Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of W.B. (1970) 1 SCC 219 : (1970 Cri LJ 743); Francis Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra (1980) 2 SCC 275 : (1980 Cri LJ 548); Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police (1989) 3 SCC 173 ; (AIR 1989 SC 1861) and Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India (1989) 3 SCC 277: (1989 Cri LJ 1447).(Para 12)
In this case, admittedly, the representation dated 14-1-1998 was disposed of by communication dated 4-3-1998 and there was more than two months' delay in disposal of the representation. No explanation was offered by the 2nd respondent for the delay in spite of the specific contention in the O.P. regarding inordinate delay as raised in Ground 'L' of the O.P. No explanation was offered in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, there is no explanation at all. On this ground alone the detention is liable to be set aside. Since there is unexplained inordinate delay in disposal of representation, (here is violation of the constitututional safeguards and on this ground alone we are constrained to set aside the detention order.
Frances Coralie Mullin vs W. C. Khambra & Ors on 27 February, 1980
The requirement, however, is that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. This has been emphasised and re-emphasised by a series of decisions of this Court. See Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of W.B. (1970) 1 SCC 219 : (1970 Cri LJ 743); Francis Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra (1980) 2 SCC 275 : (1980 Cri LJ 548); Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police (1989) 3 SCC 173 ; (AIR 1989 SC 1861) and Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India (1989) 3 SCC 277: (1989 Cri LJ 1447).(Para 12)
In this case, admittedly, the representation dated 14-1-1998 was disposed of by communication dated 4-3-1998 and there was more than two months' delay in disposal of the representation. No explanation was offered by the 2nd respondent for the delay in spite of the specific contention in the O.P. regarding inordinate delay as raised in Ground 'L' of the O.P. No explanation was offered in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, there is no explanation at all. On this ground alone the detention is liable to be set aside. Since there is unexplained inordinate delay in disposal of representation, (here is violation of the constitututional safeguards and on this ground alone we are constrained to set aside the detention order.
Rama Dhondu Borade vs V.K. Saraf, Commissioner Of Police & Ors on 5 May, 1989
The requirement, however, is that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. This has been emphasised and re-emphasised by a series of decisions of this Court. See Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of W.B. (1970) 1 SCC 219 : (1970 Cri LJ 743); Francis Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra (1980) 2 SCC 275 : (1980 Cri LJ 548); Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police (1989) 3 SCC 173 ; (AIR 1989 SC 1861) and Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India (1989) 3 SCC 277: (1989 Cri LJ 1447).(Para 12)
In this case, admittedly, the representation dated 14-1-1998 was disposed of by communication dated 4-3-1998 and there was more than two months' delay in disposal of the representation. No explanation was offered by the 2nd respondent for the delay in spite of the specific contention in the O.P. regarding inordinate delay as raised in Ground 'L' of the O.P. No explanation was offered in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, there is no explanation at all. On this ground alone the detention is liable to be set aside. Since there is unexplained inordinate delay in disposal of representation, (here is violation of the constitututional safeguards and on this ground alone we are constrained to set aside the detention order.
Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 17 April, 1995
In this connection, when a similar plea was raised before the Supreme Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India (1995) 4 SCC 51, the Supreme Court observed as follows :