District Magistrate and anr. Vs. Kulbir Chand - Court Judgment |
SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/666960 |
Subject | Constitution |
Court | Supreme Court of India |
Decided On | Aug-28-1987 |
Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 1987 |
Judge | A.P. Sen and; B.C. Ray, JJ. |
Reported in | 1990Supp(1)SCC141 |
Appellant | District Magistrate and anr. |
Respondent | Kulbir Chand |
Disposition | Appeal Allowed |
Excerpt:
-
[ a.p. sen and; b.c. ray, jj.] -- constitution of india — article 226 — preventive detention — precedent — high court not justified in quashing order of detention merely on ground that detention order in similar cases had earlier been revoked — each case to be decided on its own facts -- arguments heard. after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are distressed to find that there was complete non-application of mind on the part of the learned judges. each case has to be decided on its own facts.a.p. sen and; b.c. ray, jj.1. special leave granted. arguments heard.2. after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are distressed to find that there was complete non-application of mind on the part of the learned judges. while it is true that they were entitled to come to a particular conclusion upon the facts of a given case, they could not possibly have quashed the impugned order of detention merely on the ground that detention orders in similar cases had earlier been revoked. each case has to be decided on its own facts. accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. the judgment and order of the high court are set aside and it is directed to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible; and in any event, not later than four weeks from today.
Judgment:A.P. Sen and; B.C. Ray, JJ.
1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are distressed to find that there was complete non-application of mind on the part of the learned Judges. While it is true that they were entitled to come to a particular conclusion upon the facts of a given case, they could not possibly have quashed the impugned order of detention merely on the ground that detention orders in similar cases had earlier been revoked. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and it is directed to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible; and in any event, not later than four weeks from today.