2009 (5) TMI 1003

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 order dated 17.08.2001, three representations had been moved on behalf of the petitioner on 14.12.2001, 31.01.2002 and 22.07.2002 before the detaining authority. All the said representations were rejected. Although no rejection order had been sent to the petitioner. This fact is, however, clear from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(Crl) 1451/2002 seeking the quashing of the detention order. By an order dated 29.10.2003 the said writ petition was disposed of. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:  In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alka Subhash Gadia's case, Prem Singh's case and Subh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... representation made by the petitioner on behalf of her husband against the detention order. However we may clarify that Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment reported as : 1995(3) SCC 198 Hardhan Saha v. State of West Bengal held that an order under Section 11 which is communicated to the affected party need not contain the reasons for refusing to revoke the detention order. This position would hold good even in pre-detention cases. While deciding on the representations made by the petitioner, reasons for revoking or refusing to revoke the detention order need not be communicated. However, the detaining authority would record the reasons in its file. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. 4. Pursuant to the direction give....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m the said memorandum that one of the reasons for rejecting the representation was that the petitioner has not submitted to the process of law in pursuance of the detention order. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the memorandum discloses that the representation was first rejected and the latter portion of the memorandum was only an advice to the petitioner. We do not agree with this submission. There was no occasion for the respondents to give unsolicited advice to the petitioner. The last sentence of the memorandum clearly indicates the state of mind of the authority rejecting the representation. That being the case, the rejection was on a ground which was not available to the respondents in view of the clear....