9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1998 (7) TMI 680 - SC - FEMAOrder of detention revoked - Held that - Since the validity of the order of detention had been put in issue through a writ petition and the High Court returned no findings on the merits of the case the petitioner was entitled to question the order of detention while assailing the proceedings initiated under SAFEMA against her. To deny her that right on the ground that after twenty years the challenge to the order of detention could not be received was unjust and improper. Since there had been no adjudication on the merits of the order of detention by the High Court though the order had been challenged the High Court ought to have gone into the question of validity of the order of detention since the existence of such an order was the sine-qua-non for initiating proceedings under SAFEMA. The order of detention had been challenged and that challenge was not unsuccessful on merits. Appeal allowed - remand the writ petition to the High Court to be disposed of on merits.
Issues:
Challenge to order of detention under COFEPOSA, Validity of proceedings under SAFEMA after revocation of detention order, High Court's refusal to go into the merits of the case, Right to question order of detention under SAFEMA even after a long period. Challenge to order of detention under COFEPOSA: The husband of the appellant was detained under COFEPOSA, and the order of detention was challenged in a writ petition. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the case as the detention was revoked, rendering the petition "infructuous." However, when proceedings under SAFEMA were initiated against the appellant after her husband's death, she contested the validity of the detention order. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the detention order challenge, the appellant had the right to question the order of detention while challenging the SAFEMA proceedings. Validity of proceedings under SAFEMA after revocation of detention order: After the detention order was revoked, proceedings under SAFEMA were initiated against the appellant. She contended that without a valid detention order against her husband, SAFEMA proceedings could not be initiated. The High Court did not address the validity of the detention order, leading to the appellant's challenge. The Supreme Court emphasized that the existence of a valid detention order was crucial for SAFEMA proceedings and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh disposal on merits. High Court's refusal to go into the merits of the case: The High Court declined to assess the merits of the detention order challenge, citing the revocation of detention as the reason for the petition being "infructuous." This refusal prevented a thorough examination of the detention order's validity. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, stating that the absence of a High Court ruling on the detention order's merits allowed the appellant to question the order during the SAFEMA proceedings. Right to question order of detention under SAFEMA even after a long period: The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, arguing that challenging the detention order after twenty years was improper. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that since the High Court did not rule on the detention order's merits, the appellant retained the right to contest the order even after a significant period. The Court cited a previous judgment supporting this stance and set aside the High Court's decision, remanding the case for a fresh consideration on its merits.
|
