TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (11) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons had been advanced before the High Court. Though raised in the writ petition, the point relating to denial of a fair hearing before the Advisory Board has not been noticed by the High Court as a contention on behalf of the appellant, but counsel for the appellant has raised the same point before this Court and since the facts on which the ground is raised are not in dispute, we find no objection to entertaining this contention now specifically raised in this appeal. 2. The hearing of the representation of the appellant by the Advisory Board was fixed for 25th November, 1986. On that day the appellant j had specifically requested the Advisory Board to permit one Mr. Sundararajan, a retired Assistant Collector of Central Excise to assis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est was turned down. 3. In paragraph 3 of the special leave petition, the appellant had alleged that on 25th November, 1986, the detaining authority was represented by Customs Officers of the rank of Deputy Collector of Customs and Superintendent. In the counter affidavit filed before this Court there has been no denial of this fact. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent did not dispute the allegation on the basis of the record as also the papers available with him that the department was represented at the hearing before the Advisory Board by a Deputy Collector of Customs. The position, therefore, is that on 25th November, 1986 while the detaining authority was assisted by a Deputy Collector and a Superintendent of Central Excise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Smt. Kavita v. State of Maharashtra - (1982) 1 S.C.R 138 where Chinnappa Reddy, J. made the following observation :- "It is true that while Section 8(e) disentitles a detenu from claiming as of right to be represented by a lawyer, it does not disentitle him from making a request for the services of a lawyer." The learned Judge further stated :- "As often than not adequate legal assistance may be essential for the protection of the Fundamental Right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to be heard given to a detenu by Section 8(e), COFEPOSA Act." It was further observed by Reddy, J. :- "Therefore, where a detenu makes a request for legal assistance, his request w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actitioner should not be permitted to appear before the Advisory Board for any party. The Constitution does not contemplate that the detaining authority or the Government should have the facility of appearing before the Advisory Board with the aid of a legal practitioner but that the said facility should be denied to the detenu. In any case, that is not what the Constitution says and it would be wholly inappropriate to read any such meaning into the provisions of Article 22. Permitting the detaining authority or the Government to appear before the Advisory Board with the aid of a legal practitioner or a legal adviser would be in breach of Article 14, if a similar facility is denied to the detenu. We must therefore make it clear that if the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances. 6. The rule in A.K. Roy's case (supra) made it clear that the detenu was entitled to the assistance of a 'friend'. The word 'friend' used there was obviously not intended to carry the meaning of the term in common parlance. One of the meanings of the word 'friend', according to the Collins English Dictionary is "an ally in a fight or cause; supporter". The term 'friend' used in the judgments of this Court was more in this sense than meaning 'a person known well to another and regarded with liking, affection and loyalty'. A person not being a friend in the normal sense could be picked up for rendering assistance within the frame of the law as settled by this Court. The Advisory Board has, of course, to be careful in permitting a....