<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1993 (5) TMI 201 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458821</link>
    <description>Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 permits the State Government to delegate detention power to the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, and the delegation was stated to be valid. The detention was also supported on material showing the detenues as property grabbers whose dealings in Government land, unauthorised transfers and related acts prejudicially affected public order. However, the detention was held illegal because statutory approval was not shown to have been obtained within twelve days and the detenues&#039; representation under Article 22(5) was not considered independently and expeditiously, vitiating the preventive detention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:57:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (5) TMI 201 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458821</link>
      <description>Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 permits the State Government to delegate detention power to the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, and the delegation was stated to be valid. The detention was also supported on material showing the detenues as property grabbers whose dealings in Government land, unauthorised transfers and related acts prejudicially affected public order. However, the detention was held illegal because statutory approval was not shown to have been obtained within twelve days and the detenues&#039; representation under Article 22(5) was not considered independently and expeditiously, vitiating the preventive detention.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>