Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Detention order upheld under PASA Act for disrupting public order

        Khimji Raja Harijan Versus. District Magistrate and Ors.

        Khimji Raja Harijan Versus. District Magistrate and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Validity of the detention order under the PASA Act.
        2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
        3. Impact of non-compliance with procedural requirements as laid down by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy's case.
        4. Whether the activities of the petitioner as a bootlegger affected public order.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Validity of the Detention Order under the PASA Act:
        The petitioner challenged the detention order dated January 31, 1987, issued under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA Act). The detaining authority, the District Magistrate of Bhavnagar, was satisfied that the detention was necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

        2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution of India:
        The petitioner contended that his family members were not informed in writing about his detention and the place where he was to be lodged, thus violating his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The respondents countered this by stating that the petitioner's uncle was informed in writing about the detention order. However, the uncle claimed he was not informed about the place of detention, which he only learned about through a letter from the petitioner ten days later.

        3. Impact of Non-compliance with Procedural Requirements as Laid Down by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy's Case:
        The Supreme Court in A.K. Roy's case had mandated that family members of the detenu must be informed in writing about the detention order and the place of detention. The court noted that while the petitioner's uncle was informed in writing about the detention order, there was no written intimation regarding the place of detention. Despite this, the court held that oral intimation about the place of detention substantially complied with the Supreme Court's mandate, as the primary purpose of the information was to enable the family to take necessary actions, such as making representations or arranging for the detenu's needs.

        4. Whether the Activities of the Petitioner as a Bootlegger Affected Public Order:
        The court evaluated evidence showing that the petitioner's activities as a bootlegger were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the PASA Act, activities that adversely affect public order include those causing harm, danger, alarm, or a feeling of insecurity among the public. The court found that the petitioner's activities created an atmosphere of terror, necessitating the deployment of armed police and SRP in the locality. This led to the conclusion that the detaining authority was rightly satisfied that the petitioner's activities affected public order.

        Conclusion:
        The court dismissed the petition, upholding the detention order dated January 31, 1987. The court found that the procedural requirements under Article 21, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, were substantially complied with, and the detaining authority's satisfaction regarding the petitioner's activities affecting public order was justified. The detention order did not suffer from any vice, and hence, the petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found