9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o have followed in letter and spirit the procedure laid down in A.K. Roy’s case before passing the impugned order of detention. It was, however, not done. - impugned order of detention is quashed - Decided in favour of appellant. - WRIT PETITION (Crl.) No. 134 OF 2015, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 7010 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2015 - <!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in custody in Nashik Road Central Prison at Nashik, Maharashtra. (c) On 14.05.2015, the petitioner made a representation to the Detaining Authority as well as the Advisory Board, inter alia, praying therein to allow him to be represented through any legal practitioner/counsel of his choice before the Board. The representation dated 14.05.2015 was rejected by the Detaining Authority on 28.05.2015 and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 03.06.2015. (d) On 05.06.2015, a letter was issued by the Advisory Board through its Secretary informing the petitioner that the date of hearing before it was scheduled on 12.06.2015. The said letter was received by the petitioner on 06.06.2015 in prison. (e) On 12.06.2015, the petitioner submitted a written request to the Advisory Board for a short adjournment so that he can make arrangement for the counsel. (f) On 03.07.2015, the petitioner got an order dated 29.06.2015 written by the Section Officer to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department communicating him that after considering the report of the Advisory Board, he is directed to be detained for a period of one year from the date of detention, i.e., 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ands settled by the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of A.K.Roy s case (supra). Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J., speaking for the Bench succinctly dealt with this issue and held in paragraph 93 as under : 93. We must therefore hold, regretfully though, that the detenu has no right to appear through a legal practitioner in the proceedings before the Advisory Board. It is, however, necessary to add an important caveat. The reason behind the provisions contained in Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution clearly is that a legal practitioner should not be permitted to appear before the Advisory Board for any party. The Constitution does not contemplate that the detaining authority or the government should have the facility of appearing before the Advisory Board with the aid of a legal practitioner but that the said facility should be denied to the detenu. In any case, that is not what the Constitution says and it would be wholly inappropriate to read any such meaning into the provisions of Article 22. Permitting the detaining authority or the government to appear before the Advisory Board with the aid of a legal practitioner or a legal adviser would be in breach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were present and heard in the course of proceedings. Paras 2 and 3 of the affidavit read as under: 2. At the outset I state that I am filing the present affidavit to the extent that the Petitioner has referred to the proceedings before the Advisory Board. It is true that the Petitioner had addressed a representation dated 14.05.2015 through Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. It is also true that on the date of hearing before the Advisory Board on 12.06.2015, Petitioner made a request for adjourning proceedings for two weeks to enable him to engage a Legal Advisor. The Advisory Board decided not to grant any time for that purpose and after hearing the detenu as well as his son concluded the proceedings. 3. I say that it is true that in the course of hearing Officers of the Sponsoring Authority and Detaining Authority were present and were heard in the course of the proceedings. 10. In our considered opinion, since the Detaining Authority was represented by the officers at the time of hearing of the petitioner's case before the Advisory Board, the petitioner too was entitled to be represented through legal practitioner. Since no such oppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
