LexMAKHAN LAL GOKUL CHAND versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c MAKHAN LAL GOKUL CHAND v. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ANR. NOVEMBER 2, 1999 [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., G.T. NANAVATI, K.T. THOMAS, D.P. WADHWA ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] Preventive detention: Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 197 4/Qeneral Clauses Act, 1897 s.11 /s.21-0rder of detention-- Challenged thrice-Challenge failed everytime-Order challenged four th time-Representation rejected-Writ petition filed under Article 32 of the D Constitution on the ground that State government failed to constitute a fresh Advisory Board to consider the fourth representation-Held, in the absence of "fresh grounds", ''fresh material" or any "subsequent event", there was no obligation on the State to get the representation considered by fresh Advisory Board, and, therefore, the exercise of discretion by State in rejecting the representation and not constituting a 'fresh' Advisory Board cannot be E faulted-Making the fourth representation without any fresh cause being available to the detenu was apparently designed to file yet another writ petition-Attitude of detenu is disapproved-Writ petition dismissed-However, detenu need not be taken into custody to undergo remaining period of detention-Constitution of India-Article 32. F ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 608 of 1983. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) Harijinder Singh, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, Ms. Gauri Karuna Dass and Ms. G Leena Prasad for the Petitioner. Ms. Rekha Pandey for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : H 360 M.L. GOKUL CHAND v. ADMINISTRATOR. UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI 361 On 27th September, 1983 a three Judge Bench of this Court doubted the A correctness of the 'wide observations' made in the case of Ram Bali Rajbhar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., [1975] 3 SCR 63, and being of the opinion that the view expressed in Pushpa v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (1979) SC 1953, ran in the teeth of the judgment of Rajbhar 's case (supra) referred the matter to a larger Bench. The referring Bench noticing that the detenu had B already suffered detention for a period of I 0 months out of the 12 months period of detention imposed by the order dated 15th December, 1982, directed the detenu to be released on parole. Mr. Harjinder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken us through the judgments in Rajbhar 's case and Pushpa 's case (supra). C A careful perusal of both the judgments, however, shows that there is no conflict between the two. The view expressed in Rajbhar's case (supra), in our opinion, lays down the correct law and does not call for any reconsideration. Insofar as the view expressed in Pushpa 's case (supra) is concerned, it deserves to be noticed that the learned Single Judge, deciding the petition during the vacation, did not say anything· which may be D considered as running contrary to the view expressed in Rajbhar 's case (supra). On facts it was f~und in that case that two representations had been made by the detenu against the order of detention and both the representations were placed before the ·same Advisory Board when it met and the Board considered the representations at that sitting, The argument raised in that E case that the second representation had not been considered by an Advisory Board was thus found, on facts, as not valid. The Court, under those circumstances, declined to examine the contention whether personal appearance of the detenu to explain his case before the Advisory Board, since he had filed detailed written representation, infringed any of the rights of the detenu. F Learned counsel appearing for the parties have been unable to point out any area of conflict between Rajbhar 's case and Pushpa 's case. In fairness to the learned counsel it must be noticed that they submitted that the reference does not require to be answered. We agree. G Coming, however, to the facts of the present case. It is found that representations had been made by the petitioner against the order of detention which were considered by the "detaining authority and the Advisory Board. The representations were rejected. The order of detention and the order of rejection or the representations was challenged through writ petition No. 61 H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A 1983, which was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 1st Febru
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.