9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly what has happened in this case. . This Court did not go into the question of validity of the order of detention but disposed of the matter on account of the fact that detenu had already been released from his detention. We, therefore, cannot say that challenge to the order of detention by Amritlal was unsuccessful and that he or his relatives or his associates were in any way debarred from challenging the order of detention subsequently when notices under SAFEMA were issued to them. Appeal dismissed. - CRL.A. 2 OF 1994 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1487 OF 1994 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 1994 - - - Dated:- 29-4-1998 - K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ. JUDGMENT D.P. Wadhwa, J. These are three appeals. Two appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2/94 and 574/94) are directed against the judgment dated April 29, 1993 of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court and have been filed respectively by the Competent Authority and the State of Gujarat. By this impugned judgment the High Court allowed two writ petitions filed by the respondents declaring that the order of detention passed against the first respondent Amritlal Chandmal Jain ( Amritlal ) under the provisions of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mritlal was reduced by the detaining authority up to August 16, 1983 when he was released from detention. Second writ petition was disposed of on July 10, 1985 by the following order:- In so far as these cases are concerned, the period during which the petitioners were on parole shall be taken into account while calculating the total period of detention. The order of detention was passed more than two and half years ago. The writ petitions will stand disposed of in terms of this order. On October 10, 1985 Competent Authority issued notice under Section 6 of the SAFEMA to the respondents in Crl. As. 2/94 and 574/94. That was challenged by filing a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court (SCA 5684/85). Subsequently, however, the grounds on which notice of forfeiture under Section 6 of SAFEMA was issued were revised and other notice under Section 6 was issued. That led to filing of another writ petition in the Gujarat High Court (S. Crl. A. 499/91). When notice under Section 8 of SAFEMA was issued on July 28, 1991 yet another writ petition (SCA 5900/91) was filed. Since the very foundation of action under SAFEMA was the order of detention passed against Amritla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontained in the letter dated November 4, 1991 of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I. By impugned judgment dated June 23, 1993, SCA 7623/92 was dismissed by the High Court holding the same infructuous as proceedings under SAFEMA had been quashed against Amritlal and others. High Court also did not go into the question whether second writ petition by the Competent Authority was maintainable after the first having been withdrawn when relief claimed in both the writ petitions was practically the same. High Court took notice the decision dated April 29, 1993 of another Division Bench where it was held that detention of Amritlal was illegal and since the very foundation for initiation of proceedings under SAFEMA was knocked out the proceedings under SAFEMA had come to an end and there was nothing further that was required in SCA 7623/92 to be considered which had thus become infructuous. Aggrieved by the judgment dated June 23, 1993 (in SCA 7623/92) Competent Authority has filed appeal in this Court (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1487/84). We may also note that the High Court in its judgment dated April 29, 1993 had held that the order of detention of Amritlal was bad on two counts, viz., (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when such order of detention was in force, - or is unsuccessful in his attack thereon, - he, or his relatives and associates cannot attack or question its validity when it is made the basis for applying SAFEMA to him or to his relatives or associates. None of the appellants questioned validity of the order of the High Court in the judgment dated April 29, 1993 holding that second order of detention on the same grounds could not have been passed and on that account order of detention was illegal. Their only contention was that the order of detention had not been challenged at the appropriate time and that the impugned judgment could not be sustained in view of decision of this Court in Amritlal Prajivandas's case. That does not appear to us to be quite correct. We may at this stage refer to challenges made to the orders of detention by Amritlal when the orders of detention were in force. First order of detention was itself revoked by the detaining authority. This, therefore, ceased to exist. This is apart from the fact that High Court had held that revocation was not validity made. Nevertheless the detenu had been released. Second order of detention was challenged on various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
