TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was liable to be quashed on the ground that a co-accused with an identical role had been released, attracting Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the detention was vitiated because the petitioner's representation to the Central Government was not considered.
Issue (i): Whether the detention order was liable to be quashed on the ground that a co-accused with an identical role had been released, attracting Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The petitioner was only a salesman acting under the licence-holder's instructions, and the grounds of detention against both persons arose from the same incident and the same alleged black-market sale of kerosene. No material showed any distinguishing feature between the petitioner and the shop-owner, nor any basis to hold that the petitioner alone was responsible for the activity or its . Once the co-detenu with an identical role was released on the Advisory Board's opinion, continued detention of the petitioner on the same factual foundation became discriminatory.
Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and was liable to be quashed as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issue (ii): Whether the detention was vitiated because the petitioner's representation to the Central Government was not considered.
Analysis: The record showed that the representations made through the State Government and directly to the Central Government were processed and rejected within a reasonable time. The material also did not establish that the representation sent directly through counsel raised any additional ground distinct from the earlier representation. In these circumstances, no prejudice or illegality was made out on the ground of non-consideration.
Conclusion: The detention was not vitiated on the ground of non-consideration of the representation.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded because continued detention after release of a co-detenu on identical facts was discriminatory, and the detention order was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, where a person and a co-detenu are alleged to have played an identical role on the same facts, continued detention of one while the other is released amounts to hostile discrimination and violates Article 14.
TaxTMI 
