LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus MANOHARLAL NARANG
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANOHARLAL NARANG MARCH 2, 1987 [V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, section 6( 1) read with section 2, scope-Right of a relative to raise all grounds available to him though such grounds were raised and found against in an earlier proceedings against the detenu- -:>- C principle of Resjudicata will not apply. ·---y ~- Doctrine of the application of the mind, scope Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 141 and 144, scope of-Conditional order passed by the Supreme Court for the release of a detenu-Condition imposed by ~· the Supreme Court in its order dated 1.5.1975 is a material and relevant D factor, but not taken into account-Counter affidavit filed that it is not necessary to take note of-Propriety of the order. Respondent and Ramlal Narang are brothers. An order of dete11- . lion passed on 19.12.1974 under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA against Ramlal Narang was successfully challenged by W .P. 10/75 before the , E Delhi High Court. An appeal was filed against that order before the Supreme Cow1 by the Union of India. Refusing a stay application, the Supreme Court passed an order imposing certain conditions on the movement of Ramlal Narang. On 25.6.1975 Emergency was declared. On 1. 7 .1975 a fresh order of detention was passed against Ramlal on the same facts and grounds. The earlier appeal filed by Union of India F against W.P. 10/75 was dismissed in 1977. Ramlal was detained under the second order of detention. A writ petition No. 115/75 filed by bis i relative before the Delhi High Court challenging the second detention ~ was dismissed on 25.11.1975. An appeal was filed by certificate against that order before the Supreme Court as Crl. Appeal No. 399/75. In the meanwhile, notices under sections 6 and 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign G Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 were issued against Ramlal. These notices were challenged by him by filing W .P. No. 720/75 in the Delhi High Court. Subsequently Crl. Appeal No. 399/75 was disposed of observing that it would be open to raise all contentions available to him in W .P. 720/75 notwithstanding what is contained in W .P. 115/75. The Delhi High. Court having dismissed W .P. H NO. 720/75,, Crl. Appeal No. 2790/85 was preferred to the Supreme 454 . --,. U.0.1. v. MANOHARLAL NARANG 455 Court and is now pending before the Constitution Bench on the question of competency of the authorities to issue second detention order on the same grounds and facts. While Respondents Manoharlal was in England an order of deten- tion Ubder COFEPOSA was issued against him on 31.1.1975. He was brought to India on some express understanding given to the Govern- ment of tbe United Kingdom. His order of detention was quashed by tbe Bombay High Court, while allowing his writ petition No. 2752/75 on 8.7.1980. The Union appeal against the same was dismissed on 4.11.1980 by the Supreme Court. A further notice under section 6 of the SAFEMA read with section 2 was issued to tbe Respondent on 29.10.83 on the basis of the detention order dated 1. 7 .1975 issued against Ramlal. A full ilench of the Bombay High Court quashed the said notice resulting in tbe present Crl. Appeal No. 662/86 by Union of India. The appellants plea to have the case tagged on to Crl. Appeal No. 2790/85 pending before tbe Constitution Bench was opposed by respondent since he could succeed on merits. Dismissing tbe appeal, the Court, HELD: I. In Ibis case, the provisions of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 were being pressed into service because he is a relative answering tbe description given in Explanation 2 to sub-section (2) of section 2 was available. Therefore, in such cases, the person against whom action ls taken by invoking tbe Explanation to Sub-section 2 referred to above, is at liberty to raise all grounds available to him though such grounds were rai- ..._ sed and found against in a proceed~s initiated by the relative. [459C-D] 2. An order of the Supreme Court is not an inconsequential order. If tbe detaining authority has considered the order of Supreme Conrt, one cannot state with definiteness which way his subjective satisfaction would have reacted. This order could have persuaded the detaining antbority to desist from passing the order of detention since Supreme Court had allow
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.