Vijay Kumar Misra Vs. Superintendent, District Jail and ors.

.....exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - it is well known that a large number of such mla's are reputed criminals, gangsters or mafia leaders. what will happen to our country in this state of affairs can well be imagined......of such mla's are reputed criminals, gangsters or mafia leaders. what will happen to our country in this state of affairs can well be imagined.5. as already stated above, we were disinclined to interfere in such a case but we have to do so with a heavy heart as the law of habeas corpus is a technical law and there are two legal points on which the petition has to be allowed. firstly, it is alleged in paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 of the petition that the detaining authority did not inform the petitioner that he has a right to make a representation against the detention order to the detaining authority. this fact is not disputed by the respondents. hence in view of the division bench decision of this court in jai prakash shastri v. adhishak janpad karagar 2000 (41) acc 883 : 2000 all lj 2791 which followed the decision of the supreme court in state of maharashtra v. santosh shastri acharya (2000) 8 jt (sc) 374 : air 2000 sc 2504 the impugned detention order becomes illegal. secondly the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention order itself cannot fix the period of detention at the initial stage has also to be accepted in view of the decision of the constitution bench of the supreme court in makhan singh tarsikka v. state of punjab air 1952 sc 27, which has been followed by the division bench of this court in adesh kumar v. adhichhak janpad karagar 1997 up cri rulings 647.6. for the reasons given above the petition is allowed.7. impugned detention order dated 24-4-2002 is quashed. the petitioner shall be released forthwith unless he is required in some other criminal preventive detention case.