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>Court Invalidates Detention Order for Delays; Emphasizes Prompt Action for Preventive Measures</h1> The court found the preventive detention order invalid due to delays in issuing the order, disposing of representations, improper disposal of ... - Issues Involved: Delay in issuing the preventive detention order, delay in disposal of representations, improper disposal of representations, and delay in execution of the detention order.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Issuing the Preventive Detention Order:The petitioner contended that there was a significant delay in issuing the preventive detention order. The court noted that the detenu's alleged activities ceased by March 2001, and the detention order was issued on 20.11.2003, more than 2 1/2 years later. This delay was deemed unexplained and unjustifiable, as preventive detention should be issued promptly to prevent activities rather than as a punitive measure. The court cited precedents such as *Lakshman Khatik v. The State of West Bengal* and *Golam Hussai Alias Gama v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta*, where unexplained delays in issuing detention orders were held to invalidate the detention.2. Delay in Disposal of Representations:The petitioner argued that the representations against the detention order were not disposed of in a timely manner. The court observed an eighteen-day delay in disposing of the representation dated 12.4.2004, which was not explained in the counter affidavit. The Supreme Court in *Union of India v. Paul Manickam* emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of representations under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 11 of COFEPOSA. The court concluded that the delay violated the constitutional mandate, rendering the detention order invalid.3. Improper Disposal of Representations:The petitioner claimed that the representations were not properly disposed of by the appropriate authority. The court found that the Joint Secretary's order rejecting the representation was not communicated to the detenu; instead, the Under Secretary informed him of the rejection without providing reasons. The court emphasized that the disposal of representations requires proper application of mind, as held in *John Martin v. The State of West Bengal*. The court found that the Secretary's endorsement on the representation lacked detailed reasoning, and the failure to communicate the order properly to the detenu constituted a procedural violation.4. Delay in Execution of the Detention Order:The petitioner contended that there was an unexplained delay in executing the detention order. The order dated 20.11.2003 was executed only on 27.3.2004, more than four months later. The court noted that the mere statement that the detenu was absconding was insufficient to explain the delay. Evidence showed that the detenu was available at his residence and appeared before various authorities during this period. The court cited precedents such as *P.V. Iqbal v. Union of India* and *A. Mohammed Farook v. Jt. Secretary to G.O.I.*, where delays in executing detention orders were held to invalidate the detention.Conclusion:The court concluded that the preventive detention order was invalid on all four grounds: unexplained delay in issuing the order, delay in disposing of representations, improper disposal of representations, and unexplained delay in executing the order. The court allowed the writ petition and directed the immediate release of the detenu.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
