9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Unreasonable delay in passing the order of detention. 2. Unreasonable delay in execution of the order of detention. 3. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority due to reliance on irrelevant facts. 4. Improper consideration of the representation dated 8.8.94 by the Central Government. 5. Unexplained delay by the State Government in disposing of the representation dated 8.8.94. 6. Independent consideration of the representation dated 21.4.94 by the State Government. 7. Validity of the rejection of the representation dated 8.8.94 by the State Government. Detailed Analysis: Point 1: Unreasonable Delay in Passing the Order of Detention The incident occurred on 21.12.92, and the detention order was passed on 28.4.93. The court reviewed several precedents, establishing that unexplained delay might vitiate an order of detention if it snaps the nexus between the incident and the detention. However, there is no strict rule regarding the length of delay. The court found that the delay was satisfactorily explained by the need for detailed investigation and procedural steps. The proposal for detention was received on 17.3.1993, examined, and approved by the Lt. Governor on 23.4.93. Hence, the delay was justified, and Point 1 was decided against the petitioner. Point 2: Unreasonable Delay in Execution of the Order of Detention The detention order was passed on 28.4.93 but executed on 22.2.94. The court noted that delay in arresting the detenu would not vitiate the detention order if the detenu was absconding or evading arrest. The court found that the petitioner was evading arrest, as evidenced by multiple reports and efforts to locate him. Therefore, the delay was satisfactorily explained, and Point 2 was held against the petitioner. Point 3: Non-application of Mind by the Detaining Authority Due to Reliance on Irrelevant Facts The petitioner argued that the detaining authority relied on irrelevant documents, indicating non-application of mind. The court clarified that "grounds" within the context of detention include primary facts and inferences drawn from them. It held that if the detaining authority considers both relevant and innocuous or neutral documents, it does not vitiate the subjective satisfaction. The court found that the documents in question were either relevant or innocuous and did not affect the validity of the detention order. Thus, Point 3 was decided against the petitioner. Point 4: Improper Consideration of the Representation Dated 8.8.94 by the Central Government This point was given up upon the production of the proceedings relating to delegation by the Central Government. Point 5: Unexplained Delay by the State Government in Disposing of the Representation Dated 8.8.94 The representation dated 8.8.94 was forwarded to the State Government on 10.8.94 and rejected on 7.9.94. The court found that the delay was satisfactorily explained, considering weekends, holidays, and procedural steps. Therefore, there was no unreasonable delay or indifference by the State Government, and Point 5 was held against the petitioner. Point 6: Independent Consideration of the Representation Dated 21.4.94 by the State Government The petitioner argued that the State Government did not independently consider the representation dated 21.4.94 and was influenced by the Advisory Board's opinion. The court found that the representation was independently considered and rejected on 12.5.94, uninfluenced by the Advisory Board's opinion. Thus, Point 6 was decided against the petitioner. Point 7: Validity of the Rejection of the Representation Dated 8.8.94 by the State Government The petitioner contended that the representation dated 8.8.94 was under Section 11 of COFEPOSA and was wrongly rejected. The court clarified that the representation was under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, not Section 11 of COFEPOSA. The rejection was based on the earlier rejection and the Advisory Board's opinion. The court found no manifest error in the rejection, and hence, Point 7 was held against the petitioner. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, with all points decided against the petitioner.
|
