9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government of India in the Ministry of Finance made the requisite declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act, Annexure B. 2. Petitioner, at the instance of the detenu, made a representation to the Chief Minister on November 24, 1984, against the detention and the said representation was received in the office of the Chief Minister on November 28, 1984. This representation was rejected on January 28, 1985, two months after its receipt as alleged by the petitioner. Detenu appeared before the Advisory Board on April 17, 1985. When he appeared before the Board he asked for the assistance of a lawyer or alternatively of a non-lawyer friend. The request was not acceded to and the Board made an adverse report to the State Government. The petitioner had challenged the detention of her husband by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court being Criminal Writ Petition No. 50 of 1985. By judgment dated April 29, 1985 the High Court dismissed the said petition. This writ application has thereafter been filed in July 1985 for the reliefs indicated already. 3. Two affidavits in opposition have been filed - one by the Special Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra and the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any friend despite the request made in the representation, is noted in the Minutes which are regularly kept by the Chairman, Advisory Board. 4. On more or less similar allegations the Bombay High Court had been moved for quashing of petitioner's husband's detention. The High Court examined the contention at great length and ultimately concluded that on the facts of the case continued detention of the petitioner's husband was not vitiated. 5. Though raised in the writ application the challenge against the declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act has not been canvassed at the hearing by Mr. Jethmalani appearing for the petitioner. It was stated to us that the challenge to the vires of the Section is pending before this Court for consideration by a larger Bench and as the petitioner is anxious to have her writ petition disposed of expeditiously, petitioner does not press the relief against the declaration and would remain content by confining the challenge to the order of detention. In view of counsel's statement and in the circumstances stated, we proceed to consider the challenge to the order of detention, Annexure 'A' without entering into controvers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Minister on November 28, 1984, and Mr. Jethmalani has accepted the position that orders on the representation were passed on January 2, 1985, and the said orders were received on January 28, 1985. In the representation made by the petitioner to the Chief Minister, the order of detention was casually impugned but lot of attention appears to have been bestowed on the necessity of keeping the detenu in a Bombay Jail instead of sending him to Nasik Road Prison as directed in the order of detention. A detailed representation was made by Secretary, Khed Taluka Maratha Seva Sangh challenging the detention. It appears that the detenu belonged to the Khed Taluka and his case was espoused by the Sangh. It is not disputed before us that the said representation was received on November 29, 1984, in the Secretariat of the Chief Minister and was forwarded to the Home Department on December 3, 1984, and was finally disposed of on December 12, 1984, and the rejection thereof was communicated on December 13, 1984. This representation was a detailed one and on a due consideration thereof the representation had been expeditiously disposed of. The High Court looked into the two representations - one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subjective and it is not for the Court to test the adequacy of the material on which satisfaction is reached. It is quite possible as suggested in the writ application and reiterated in the submission of learned Counsel that at a trial conviction may not have been secured on the basis of the statement of Sabnis. But that argument is not available for challenging an order of detention if the satisfaction of the detaining authority has been reached on bona fide basis. We do not think there is any force in this submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, attack on that ground has to be rejected. 11. The third submission advanced by counsel is a reiteration of the allegation in paragraph 3(I) of the writ petition. There it was alleged: ...the grounds of detention disclosed that the detaining authority has relied upon some alleged contact between the detenu and one Yusuf Herro. In para 12 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority states : 'Intelligence gathered reveals that the main person behind the said smuggling racket is one Yusuf Herro. Since he has figured in many big cases detected by the Customs Deptt. his photograph was available with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r alleged: That, on the 17th April, 1985, the detenu appeared before the Advisory board. He handed over to the Advisory Board his written representation containing a prayer that the detenu be allowed to be represented by a lawyer, and in the alternative, by a non-lawyer friend or a relative. These requests were not considered by the Advisory Board and were not disposed of as are required to be done by judgments of this Hon'ble Court. Under the circumstances, the hearing before the Advisory Board was not in accordance with the law, the detenu's continued detention is invalid. This aspect has been dealt with in the counter-affidavit of Mokal, Desk Officer of Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra and the relevant paragraph has already been extracted by us earlier. Ordinarily, in cases of this type representation by lawyer is not allowed. In A.K. Roy's case this Court indicated: Thus, according to the express intendment of the Constitution itself, no person who is detained under any law, which provides for preventive detention, can claim the right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice or to be defended by him. In view of this, it seems to us di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
