1998 (7) TMI 680

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e detention is revoked, the petition does not survive. Hence Rule discharged with no order as to costs." The High Court, thus, did not go into the merits of the case and the various grounds on which the order of detention had been questioned. After the order of detention was revoked. It appears, that a notice under Section 6 of SAFEMA was issued to the husband of the petitioner. While the proceedings under SAFEMA were pending, the husband of the petitioner died. Respondent NO. 4, then, made an order on 23.3.1993 holding that the petitioner was a person who fell within the ambit of them is chief of Section 2 of the SAFEMA and directed proceedings under Section 7 of SAFEMA to be taken against her. The petitioner questioned the proceedin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....High Court declined to go into the merits of the case being of the opinion that since the order of detention had been revoked, the writ petition had been rendered "infructuous". The High Court returned no finding on the merits of the challenge of the order detention. When proceedings under SAFEMA were initiated against the petitioner, after the death of her husband, she could question the correctness of the grounds of detention while assailing the order of detention since a valid order of detention is a condition precedent for initiating proceedings under SAFEMA. Since, the validity of the order of detention had been put in issue through a writ petition and the High Court returned no findings on the merits of the case, the petitioner was en....