9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntive action was necessary and, therefore, a proposal was made to detain him. After observing formalities, an impugned order of detention was passed on 22nd April, 1987. It was however, served on the detenu on 7th August, 1987, which order is being impugned in this petition on behalf of the detenu under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. In support of the petition, Shri Gupta, the learned Counsel pressed into service pre-dominently four contentions and in our opinion, all the said four contentions deserve to be accepted. 3. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 29th October, 1986. The impugned order is recorded on 22nd April, 1987 and it was served on the detenu on 7th August, 1987. This aspect, therefore, contains two C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion, which is obviously unreasonable and unexplained, is fatal to the validity of the impugned order. On this forum also it could not be properly explained. 5. In the second chapter, the delay is from 22nd April, 1987 to 7th August, 1987, in serving the order on the detenu. It is stated in the return that the detenu was not available and did not attend the Court even on the dates of the hearings. This is denied by the detenu. However, it is apparent that adjudication proceeding was initiated by the Customs Authority and the detenu has admittedly attended the same. Significantly he was informed by written intimation on 18th May, 1987 to remain present on 17th June, 1987 and accordingly he attended on 17th and 18th June, 1987 the said a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ast point is that the representation which was made to the Central Government on 1st September, 1987 was considered late and its rejection was communicated to him on 13th October, 1987. This is apparent from the letter of communication. No return is filed on behalf of the Central Government nor it is clarified by any document and there was no explanation for this delay, first, in taking the decision on the representation and second, in communicating the same. Both the counts are against the Department. 8. The petition, therefore, succeeds on all these grounds. Rules absolute. The impugned order of detention dated 22nd April, 1987 recorded by the first respondent is quashed and set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
