9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the appellant was disposed of by the Advisory Board on 25th April, 1987. In these circumstances, it cannot be denied that the failure on the part of the Detaining Authority to supply the aforesaid material documents prevented the appellant from making an effective representation against the grounds of detention and as such the mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) have not been complied with. The order of detention in our considered opinion is, therefore, illegal and bad and the same is liable to be quashed. Appeal allowed. - 54 of 1988 - - - Dated:- 27-1-1988 - G.L. Oza and B.C. Ray, JJ. ADVOCATES : Mr. Soli J. Sorabji, Advocate, for the Petitioner Additional Solicitor General, for the Respondents. [Judgment per : Ray ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Regulation Act, 1973 :- (i) Premises situated in Purana Laxman Mandir, Opposite Dr. Ram Kumar, Bharatpur. (ii) Premises situated in Dahiwali Gall, Karola Market, Naya Laxman Mandir, Bharatpur, and (iii) Business premises of M/s. Mandanlal Mohanlal and Baldev Singh, Karola, Laxman Mandir Crossing, Near Bata Shop, Bharatpur. 5. On 6th April, 1987, the appellant made two representations; one to the Detaining Authority, 2nd respondent and another to the Central Government, the 1st respondent. In the representation to the Detaining Authority, the appellant stated that he had no concern whatsoever as regards the residential premises situated at Purana Laxman Mandir, Opp. Dr. Ram Kumar, Bharatpur where the search was conducted and on suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 stating therein that his detention had been confirmed with effect from 21st March, 1987 for a period of one year. 7. The appellant thereafter challenged the order of detention by a writ petition and also prayed for quashing of the said order of detention on the ground inter alia that the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority in coming to his subjective satisfaction for making the order of detention in question which were required to be supplied to him along with the grounds of detention, were not supplied to him. The grounds of detention were supplied to him on 21st March, 1987 whereas the vital documents were supplied to him as late as on 24th April, 1987 in infringement of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Conservation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passbook, account books were seized from the said premises. It was also stated in para 7 of the said affidavit that the information sought in the representation of 6th April, 1987 received in the office of the Detaining Authority on 15th April, 1987 was totally irrelevant for the purpose of making any representation. In para 10 of the said affidavit it had been stated that the detenu was supplied with more documents numbering 150 pages on 24th April, 1987 in pursuance of his representation dated 6th April, 1987, although the same were not relied upon in forming the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority, Shri Tarun Roy, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Article 22(5) of the Constitution as the appellant was prevented from making effective representation to the grounds of detention. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that those documents which comprised of the 3 bank passbooks of the appellant and his wife and one driving licence of the appellant which had been seized and taken possession of by the Customs Department will clearly show that the residential address of the appellant mentioned therein is the house in Dahiwali Gali, Karola Market, Naya Laxman Mandir, Bharatpur and not in Purana Laxman Mandir, Opp. Dr. Ram Kumar, Bharatpur which house does not belong to the appellant but to his sister-in-law. The foreign currency i.e. US $ as well as the primary gold which were found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stal clear that the aforesaid documents though placed before the Detaining Authority for his consideration were not supplied to the appellant within 15 days from the date of the order of detention as provided under Section 3(3) of the said Act. It is also evident from the affidavit of Shri S.K. Chaudhary, Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi that on the request of the appellant by his representation dated 6th April, 1987, the documents were supplied to him on 24th April, 1987. The representation of the appellant was disposed of by the Advisory Board on 25th April, 1987. In these circumstances, it cannot be denied that the failure on the part of the Detaining Authority to supply the aforesaid material docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
