TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Validity of detention order and delayed executiondelay can impeach subjective satisfaction, resulting in quashing if unexplained</h1> Validity of detention orders is assessed by reference to the genuine subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority; unexplained delay between the ... Validity of detention Order - subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate - failure on the part of the respondent to supply information to the Court - HELD THAT:- In view of this failure on the part of the respondent to supply information to the Court as to then the petitioner was discharged, we must proceed on the assumption that he must have been discharged on or about 10th September, 1973. The order of detention must have been made by the District Magistrate in anticipation of the discharge of the petitioner and the discharge of the petitioner can, therefore, be presumed to have taken place at or about the time when the order of detention was made, that is, 10th September, 1973. But if that be so, the conclusion is inescap-able that though the petitioner was available for detention since about 10th September, 1973, he was not detained for a period of about two and a half months upto 23rd November, 1973. There was delay of about two and a half months in detaining the petitioner pursuant to the order of detention and this delay, unless satisfactorily explained, would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate recited in the order of detention. It would be reasonable to assume that if the District Magistrate was really and genuinely satisfied after proper application of mind to the materials before him that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner, he would have acted with greater promptitude in securing the arrest of the petitioner immediately after the invoking of the order of detention, and the petitioner would not have been allowed to remain at large for such a long period of time to carry on his nefarious activities. of course when we say this we must not be understood to mean that whenever there is delay in arresting the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be held to be not genuine or colourable. Each case must depend on its own peculiar acts and circumstances. The detaining authority may have a reasonable explanation for the delay and that might be sufficient to dispel the inference that its satisfaction was not genuine. But here we find that though an affidavit-in-reply was filed by the District Magistrate himself, no explanation was forthcoming in this affidavit as to why the petitioner was not arrested until 23rd November, 1973, though the order of detention was made as far back as 10th September, 1973. Since in the present case no explanation for the delay has been given in the affidavit-in reply filed by the District Magistrate, we are not at all satisfied that the District Magistrate applied his mind and arrived at a real and genuine subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner. The condition precedent for the making of the order of detention was, therefore, not satisfied and consequently the order of detention must be quashed and set aside. We accordingly quash and set aside the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. Issues involved: Challenge to detention under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 based on subjective satisfaction of District Magistrate.Summary:The petitioner challenged his detention under an order dated 10th September, 1973 u/s 3(2)(i) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order was based on the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate regarding the necessity to prevent the petitioner from acting prejudicially. The petitioner contended that the delay of about two and a half months in his detention raised doubts on the genuineness of the District Magistrate's satisfaction. The Court noted that the petitioner was discharged in a criminal case related to the incident cited for detention, but the exact date of discharge was not provided. The absence of this crucial information led to the presumption that the petitioner was discharged around the time of the detention order, indicating a lack of genuine necessity for detention. The Court emphasized the importance of disclosing pending criminal cases before making orders of preventive detention. As no satisfactory explanation for the delay in the petitioner's arrest was provided, the Court concluded that the District Magistrate did not genuinely satisfy the conditions for detention. Consequently, the order of detention was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be released immediately.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
