9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant facts giving rise to the order of preventive detention lie in a narrow compass and may be briefly stated. On 23-10-1990 at about 11 p.m. the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras raided the house of the detenu situate at Egmore, Madras and recovered 25 silver bars from the open space but inside the compound of the house. Another 10 bars of silver were also recovered from an auto-rickshaw which was just then leaving the house of the detenu. A Maruti van was found parked inside the compound of the house of the detenu and from the van 11 bars of silver were recovered. All the silver bars which have no foreign markings and each weighing 30 Kgs, were seized. Including the detenu three persons were arrested in that connection and confessional statements were recorded from them on 24-10-1990. From the confessional statement recorded from the detenu it is revealed that one Babulal known to him gave him the silver bars for the purpose of sale, that the detenu is a silver-smith by avocation and that one Ashok Narayan Kumar alias A. Kumar, a friend of Babulal likewise action on behalf of Babulal was staying in Asoka Hotel, Madras. Pursuant to the said confessional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that non-supply of the documents by the detaining authority is in contravention of the constitutional mandate enacted in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India which lays down that the authority making an order of preventive detention shall communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order has been made. In Icchu Devi's case [1981]1SCR640 (supra) it was held that the grounds would include all the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention. Inasmuch as the documents were not supplied to the detenu by the detaining authority but sought to be supplied to the detenu by the sponsoring authority there was a breach of the requirement contained in Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 6. Thirdly, it is urged that even assuming that the documents sought to have been supplied to the detenu was on behalf of the detaining authority, the same not having been supplied within the time specified in S. 3(1) of the Act, the impugned order of detention is vitiated. Sub-section (3) of S. 3 of the Act lays down that the grounds of detention which include the documents relied upon should be served upon the detenu ordinarily not later than five days, from the date of the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... encumbrances. The respondents thereupon filed a writ petition under Art. 226 in Calcutta High Court challenging that notification. A Single Judge of the High Court entertained the petition, issued a rule nisi and passed an ad interim ex parte prohibitory order restraining the State of Rajasthan and the concerned authorities from taking any steps under S. 52(5) or (6) of the Act. The same was appealed against before the Supreme Court. The question before the Supreme Court in appeal was whether the service of notice under S. 52(2) at the registered office of the respondent was an integral part of the cause of action and was sufficient to invest the Calcutta High Court with jurisdiction to entertain the petition challenging the impugned notification of the State of Rajasthan under S. 52(1). Answering the question in the negative and allowing the appeal, their Lordships observed that the cause of action neither wholly nor in part arose within the territorial limits of the Calcutta High Court and that the mere service of notice under Section 52(2) of the Act on the respondents at their registered office within the territorial limits of the State of West Bengal could not give rise to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746 : Bhagwati, J. observed (paras 3 and 7) : Article 21 requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law and this, procedure must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. The law of preventive detention has therefore now to pass the test not only of Art. 22, but also of Arts. 21 and if the constitutional validity of any such law is challenged, the Court would have to decide whether the procedure laid down by such law for depriving a person of his personal liberty is reasonable, fair and just. The right to life enshrined in Art. 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than just physical survival. The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings. Thus, as part of the right to live with human dignity and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
