TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds of detention and the list of relied upon documents. He made a representation dated 17.10.2001 against his detention and requested for revocation of his detention order or alternatively for supply of some documents/material. His representation was rejected. He made a representation again on 29.10.2001 which also met the same fate by order dated 18.11.2001. His detention was eventually confirmed for 12 months by order dated 8.11.2001. 2. Petitioner has filed this petition to challenge his detention on a variety of grounds. His first plea is that his detention was unjustified as there was no prospect of his being bailed out as was evident from rejection of his bail applications on various dates. Support for this is drawn from the judgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion. Reference in this regard is made to Mohd. Zakir v. Delhi Administration 1982 CriLJ 611 and Vinod Kumar Arora v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi. 5. Petitioner's last grievance is that he was supplied some illegible documents which had handicapped him in making his representation against his detention infringing his right under Article 226. 6. Respondent has refuted all this in the counter affidavit filed by Deputy Secretary (Home) G.L. Meena. It is submitted in this that detaining authority had considered all bail applications of petitioner which were rejected by ACMM and ASJ and had also taken in regard likelihood of bail being granted in such cases and then deemed it necessary to pass the detention order. It is de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t but to show that detention order was passed on wholly irrelevant considerations or had no nexus with the object of detention in which case it was for the court to feel satisfied whether the necessity for such detention existed or prevailed. It does not appeal to us to contend that there was no justification for detention order because petitioner's bail applications were rejected from time to time. Because rejection of bail applications does not hold good for all times to come. Nor can any provision of law be cited to show that there was a bar to grant of bail obviating the necessity for detention. Therefore, the bail may be refused at one time and granted on consideration of new circumstances subsequently. The grant or refusal of bail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e detaining authority in passing the detention order either way. In other words, withholding or suppressed material should be such which could have some impact on passing of the detention order. It must constitute at least one of the pillars on which detention order could be passed. But if the detention order could be passed and could survive despite such withheld or suppressed material and where the detaining authority had drawn satisfaction from some other material, it would not vitiate the detention. The position on this stands capsule by the Supreme Court in A. Sowkath Ali v. Union of India (2002) 7 SCC 148 holding thus:- "The sponsoring authority should place all the relevant documents before the detaining authority. It should no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The alleged withheld/suppressed material must be such as was likely to affect the decision of the authority one way or the other. 13. This apart, in the present case, R-1 denies that petitioner's retraction was received by the Government or the sponsoring authority at all. The question of placing it before the detaining authority would not arise. Even if it was so placed, it would have still remained to be seen whether this and even the alleged exculpatory statements of three employees would have any likely impact on the satisfaction and decision of the detaining authority, whose detention order was otherwise based on the available material and when petitioner's retraction sta....