State Legal Aid Committee, J & K Vs. State of J & K and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 8 of 2004
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Petitioner: State Legal Aid Committee, J & K
Respondent: State of J & K and Ors.
Apeal: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 8 of 2004
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Judges: ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 05, 2004
Appearances:
Mr. Bhim Singh, Mr. B.S. Billowria, Mr. L. K. Gupta, Mr. S.K. Bandhyophadyay and Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ravi P. Mehrotra, Mrs. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Mrs. Neelam Singh and Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Advocates for the Respondents.
Mr. Ravi P. Mehrotra, Mrs. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Mrs. Neelam Singh and Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978
Section 13 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 22(5) – Compliance – Grounds of detention – Communication to person affected – Affidavit of State Government stated that grounds were served, readover and explained, but detenue refused to receive copy and also to sign – No mention of name of person who wanted to serve – No affidavit by him. Held that detention order is illegal and therefore quashed. (Paras 1,2)
Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978
Section 13 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 22(5) – Compliance – Grounds of detention – Communication to person affected – Affidavit of State Government stated that grounds were served, readover and explained, but detenue refused to receive copy and also to sign – No mention of name of person who wanted to serve – No affidavit by him. Held that detention order is illegal and therefore quashed. (Paras 1,2)
JUDGEMENT:
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Though several questions have been raised in this petition, it is not necessary to deal with them in detail as we find that there is no definite material to show that the requirements of Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (in short the ‘Act) requiring the grounds of order of detention to be disclosed/communicated to the person affected by the order has been complied with. Though, in the affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that the contents of the warrants and grounds of detention were served, read over and explained to the assessee and he was informed about his right to make a representation against the detention, if he so desired, there is no material placed on record to substantiate this stand. It is stated in the affidavit that the detenue refused to receive copy of the detention order and also refused to put his signatures on the documents. The least the State could have done is to file an affidavit of the person who wanted to serve the relevant documents and an endorsement to the effect that there was refusal. Even the name of the official has not been indicated in the affidavit. That would have been sufficient to comply
with the requirements of Section 13 of the Act.
2. Though a prayer for extension of time is made to file the details, we find that the currency of the detention order is expiring on 06.11.2004. Therefore, we do not accept the prayer for extension of time. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no bar on a fresh order of detention being passed. We do not express any opinion in this regard. In the present proceedings, the order of detention of the detenue is quashed. This, however, shall not stand in the way of such action being taken by the State and/or any authority in accordance with law.
3. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
1. Though several questions have been raised in this petition, it is not necessary to deal with them in detail as we find that there is no definite material to show that the requirements of Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (in short the ‘Act) requiring the grounds of order of detention to be disclosed/communicated to the person affected by the order has been complied with. Though, in the affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that the contents of the warrants and grounds of detention were served, read over and explained to the assessee and he was informed about his right to make a representation against the detention, if he so desired, there is no material placed on record to substantiate this stand. It is stated in the affidavit that the detenue refused to receive copy of the detention order and also refused to put his signatures on the documents. The least the State could have done is to file an affidavit of the person who wanted to serve the relevant documents and an endorsement to the effect that there was refusal. Even the name of the official has not been indicated in the affidavit. That would have been sufficient to comply
with the requirements of Section 13 of the Act.
2. Though a prayer for extension of time is made to file the details, we find that the currency of the detention order is expiring on 06.11.2004. Therefore, we do not accept the prayer for extension of time. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no bar on a fresh order of detention being passed. We do not express any opinion in this regard. In the present proceedings, the order of detention of the detenue is quashed. This, however, shall not stand in the way of such action being taken by the State and/or any authority in accordance with law.
3. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
