9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition and quashed the order on three grounds. (1) the grounds of detention are common with those grounds of detention in the case of Vijay Kumar; (2) Vijay Kumar and other accused were advised to be released by the Advisory Board constituted under Section 8 of the Act; and (3) there is relaxation to bring gold of foreign origin upto a certain extent on payment of certain duty. 2. Aggrieved by this judgment, the Administration of the National Capital of Delhi has preferred this appeal. The learned Counsel Mr. Nambiar on behalf of the appellant strongly relies on 1991 (1) J.T. 549, The Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Ors. v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Anr. particularly paragraph 536. On these basis it is submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under ground paragraph 3 stated in 1991 (1) J.T. 549 at 556, paragraph 13. In other words, the order of detention is used for wrong purpose. Besides, it is possible that the High Court could have been the grounds of detention of the respondent and compared the same with those of Vijay Kumar and come to the conclusion that the grounds are common. In any event, there is long delay in passing the order. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 5. We have carefully considered the above arguments. It is needless to state that the law in relation to pre-detention is fully covered by the ruling of this Court reported in 1991(1) J.T. 549 at 556 in paragraph 3. In that decision the following grounds are catalogue: The courts have the necessary po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in spite of the fact that this ruling was rendered as early as 20th December, 1990, yet as late as 16th February, 1993 should have chosen not even to refer to this decision and found out the extent of its jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere at the pre-detention stage. After all, Article 226 to interfere at the pre-detention stage. After all, Article 141 of the Constitution does not exist merely for the glorification of the Constitution. In this case, the three grounds which we have mentioned above which prevailed with the High Court for interference in our considered view are totally alien. They cannot allow the handle for interference at pre-detention stage. To put it shortly, the approach the High Court is lay, render legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
