SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 1409

2004(8) Supreme 908
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
State Legal Aid Committee, J & K -Petitioner
versus
State of J & K & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 8 of 2004
Decided on 5-11-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Bhim Singh, B.S. Billowria, L.K. Gupta, S.K. Bandhyophadyay and P.V. Yogeswaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ravi P. Mehrotra, Mrs. Deepti, R. Mehrotra, Garvesh Kabra, Mrs. Neelam Singh and Anis Suhrawardy, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of material to show that grounds of detention were communicated to detenu in terms of Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act, detention order was liable to be quashed.

Headnote:J & K Public Safety Act, 1978-Section 13-Preventive detention order -No definite material to show that grounds of order of detention were communicated to detenu-Detenu was alleged to have refused to receive copy of detention order and documents-No affidavit of the person who tried to serve those documents-Detention order was liable to be quashed.

       

ORDER

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Though several questions have been raised in this petition, it is not necessary to deal with them in detail as we find that there is no definite material to show that the requirements of Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (in short the Act ) requiring the grounds of order of detention to be disclosed/communicated to the person affected by the order has been complied with. Though, in the affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that the contents of the warrants and grounds of detention were served, read over and explained to the assessee and he was informed about his right to make a representation against the detention, if he so desired, there is no material placed on record to substantiate this stand. It is stated in the affidavit that the detenue refused to receive copy of the detention order and also refused to put his signatures on the documents. The least the State could have done is to file an affidavit of the person who wanted to serve the relevant documents and an endorsement to the effect that there was refusal. Even the name of the official has not been indicated in the affidavit. That would have been sufficient to comply with the requirements of Section 13 of the Act.

2. Though a prayer for extension of time is made to file the details, we find that the currency of the detention order is expiring on 6.11.2004. Therefore, we do not accept the prayer for extension of time. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no bar on a fresh order of detention being passed. We do not express any opinion in this regard. In the present proceedings, the order of detention of the detenue is quashed. This, however, shall not stand in the way of such action being taken by the State and/or any authority in accordance with law.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Petition disposed of.

***************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top