9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are (1) delay in passing the detention order, (2) delay in execution of the detention order, and (3) failure to provide a copy of the written proposal to the petitioner. Delay in Passing the Detention Order: The petitioner challenged the detention order passed against him under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act 1974. The order of detention was passed on 14.3.1996, but the petitioner was detained on 7.8.1997. The contention was that the delay in execution of the order indicated a lack of genuine satisfaction by the detaining authority regarding the necessity of immediate detention to prevent the petitioner from committing prejudicial activities. The sustained efforts by the police to apprehend the petitioner were listed, but it was noted that no explanation was provided for the lack of attempts to apprehend the petitioner from the date of the order to the date of his detention. The court found that the delay in executing the order raised doubts about the genuineness of the detaining authority's satisfaction, leading to the conclusion that the order was not lawfully exercised. Consequently, the order of detention was set aside, quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be set at liberty unless required in connection with another case. Failure to Provide Written Proposal: One of the grounds on which the detention order was challenged was the failure to supply a copy of the written proposal made by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority to the petitioner. However, the court did not delve into this issue as the petition was allowed based on the delay in execution of the order. This summary highlights the key issues raised in the legal judgment, focusing on the delay in execution of the detention order and the consequent decision by the court to set aside the order of detention.
|
