M.R.A.ANSARI, T.V.R.TATACHARI
DAYA SHANKAR KAPUR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
"nearly or remotely, they are connected with each other and stating them in the order of detention joined with 'or' cannot given rise to the inference that I did not apply my mind to the facts.
IN any case, I reiterate that I fully applied my mind to the relevant material before issuing the order of detention. I am further advised to submit that the ratio of the judgments cited in this paragraph has no application to the facts of this case. "
IT is exactly this kind of explanation that was considered by the Supreme Court in Kishori Mohan Bera's case and rejected with the following observations:-
"if he felt the necessity to detain the petitioner from the activities described by him in the grounds of detention on the ground that those activities affected or were likely to affect both the public order and the security of the state he would, no doubt have used the conjunctive 'and' and not the disjunctive 'or' in his order. "
( 28 ) WE have, therefore, to hold that by the use of the disjunctive in the orde
REFERRED TO : In Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. The State of Punjab
Ram Manohar Lohia v. The State of Bihar and another
Durgadas Shirali v. Union of India and another
Jaichand Lal Sethia v. The State of West Bengal and others
Jagannath Misra v. State of Orissa
Jagdish Prasad v. The State of Bihar and another
Annanta Miilhi v. The State of Wast Bengal
S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab
Bhat Nath Mate v. The State of West Bengal
Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. District Magistrate, Kamrup
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.