TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Detention order challenge under Maintenance of Internal Security Act dismissed; court upholds District Magistrate's actions.</h1> <h3>Suresh Mahato Versus The District Magistrate, Burdwan and Ors.</h3> The petition challenging the detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was dismissed. The court found that the petitioner's ... - Issues involved: The legality of detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 based on the necessity to prevent actions prejudicial to community services and supplies.Judgment Summary:1. The petition challenged an order of detention made by the District Magistrate u/s 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order was approved by the State Government after the Advisory Board's report confirmed the necessity of detention. The petitioner's representation was considered by the Advisory Board before the detention was confirmed by the State Government.2. The petitioner argued that the representation was not forwarded to the Advisory Board before their report, questioning the validity of detention. However, the report of the Advisory Board indicated they had considered the representation before giving their opinion, dismissing this contention.3. Another contention was the delay between the order of detention and the petitioner's arrest, suggesting lack of genuine satisfaction by the District Magistrate. Previous court decisions highlighted the significance of prompt arrest, but a delay of about one month was deemed reasonable and did not cast doubt on the District Magistrate's satisfaction.4. The final contention was that the order of detention was flawed as the District Magistrate was not informed about two criminal cases against the petitioner related to incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention. It was unclear whether these cases were dropped before or after the detention order. The absence of evidence showing the District Magistrate was unaware of the pending criminal cases led to the rejection of this contention.In conclusion, all three contentions raised by the petitioner were found to lack substance, resulting in the dismissal of the petition and discharge of the rule.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
