Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: assam preventive detention act 1980 section 8 grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to person affected by the order Court: mumbai Page 5 of about 42 results (0.260 seconds)

Shri Deepak G. Melwani Vs. the Union of India and Others

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR288; 1999BomCR(Cri)288; (1999)2BOMLR290

..... there being doubt as to the validity of the local acts & the preventive detention act having been passed in the meantime the question was to make a fresh order under the new act. ..... these two writ petitions arise out of the detention orders passed on 3-2-1997 against the petitioners by the second respondent under section 3(1) of the conservation of foreign exchange & prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974. ..... it is further asserted that the proposal submitted by the sponsoring authority to the ministry through its headquarters at new delhi only contains the bare facts of the case in brief depicting the role attributed by each person involved therein whereas the grounds of detention against the persons where detention order is issued are very exhaustive giving details of the respective pages of the documents sought to be rolled upon. ..... let us first examine the reply to those allegations as stated in paragraph 24 of the reply affidavit:'as regards averments made in para 22 (xii) of the petition that it is incumbent upon the detaining authority to disclose the hon'ble court as to on what date the proposal for detention was mooted by the sponsoring authority, the date on which it was placed before the screening committee, the date on which the screening committee cleared the same etc. ..... we find that this explanation also is satisfactory and does not affect the detention order. .....

Krishna Madhaorao Ghatate and anr. Vs. the Union of India and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1975Bom324; 1975CriLJ1828; 1975MhLJ822

..... 14, 21 and 22 and had made the said order applicable to persons detained under the preventive detentions act of 1950, could that order have effectively prevented the detenus from contending that their detention was illegal and void? ..... such an order could be passed by the district magistrate of a district or commissioner of police under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the act when an order is made under this section either by the district magistrate or the commissioner of police under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the act when an order is made under this section either by the district magistrate or the commissioner of police he has to report the fact to the state government forthwith together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in his opinion have bearing on the matter. ..... the very locus standi of the petitioners is affected and therefore the contended on behalf of the respondents that though the court's power to issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus has not been touched by the presidential order, the petitioner's right to move the court for a writ of that kind has been suspended by the order of the president, with the result that the petitioners have no locus standi to enforce their right, if any during the period when the presidential, order is in operation and hence these petitioners are not maintainable. .....

Mrs. Ana Maria Pereira Vs. Union of India and Another

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1993CriLJ317

..... in the scheme of the provisions of section 8 of the cofeposa act, it is clear that where the advisory board has reported that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the appropriate government may confirm the detention order, but in every case where the advisory board has reported that there is, in its opinion, no sufficient cause for the detention of the reason concerned, the appropriate government has to revoke the order of detention and cause the person to be released forthwith. 12. ..... the learned judges in para 10 sounded a caution to the high court in the following words : 'viewed from this perspective, we wish to emphasise and making it clear for the guidance of the different high courts that a distinction must be drawn between the delay in making of an order of detention under a law relating to preventive detention like the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 and the delay in complying with the procedural safeguards of article 22(5) of the constitution. ..... in para 22 of the judgment at page 627 of the report, the division bench observed that in considering the question of delay in passing the order of detention what has to be borne in mind is that the cause for detention of the detenu is his prejudicial activity which adversely affects the economy of the country. .....

Sagar Prakash Bhosale Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Others

Court : Mumbai

..... the judicial review of the subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority, therefore, will have to be tested on case to case basis; and if tangible justification is spelt out in the grounds of detention that even though the accused is already in jail, yet, it is imminent to issue order of preventive detention qua him, that would be permissible and legitimate". 19. ..... the judicial review of the subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority, therefore, will have to be tested on case to case basis; and if tangible justification is spelt out in the grounds of detention that even though the accused is already in jail, yet, it is imminent to issue order of preventive detention qua him, that would be permissible and legitimate. 9. ..... the said detention order has been passed in exercise of powers under section 3(1) of the maharashtra prevention of dangerous activities of slumlords, bootleggers, drug offenders, dangerous persons and video pirates act, 1981 (no. ..... the grounds of detention then reproduce the contents of the in-camera statements of the two witnesses "a" and "b" disclosing the involvement of the detenu in the criminal activities within the area of vijapur naka police station and nearby areas, indicating that the detenu unleashed a reign of terror having become a perpetual and potential danger to the society at large. .....

Mahendra Kumar Bhagwandas Rendheria Vs. State

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1967Bom163; (1966)68BOMLR614; 1967CriLJ720

..... the only object which has been mentioned in the order as having impelled the detaining authority to pass the order of detention is that the authority was satisfied that it was necessary to pass the said order with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the life of the community. mr. ..... they answered the question posed by them by saying 'in answering this question, the obvious test was whether the prejudicial activities of those who diverted foodgrains from the normal channels of distribution, by use of bogus ration cards or by giving short supplies to ration card-holders would be adversely affected by the detention of the petitioner and the stoppage of his personal activities. ..... 30(1) of the defence of india rules, the provision of section 44 requires that the satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the necessity of passing an order of detention must include his satisfaction that a less restrictive order would not suffice to meet the situation arising from the anticipated prejudicial activities of the proposed detenu. ..... at paragraph 11 the petitioner has gone a step further and stated that the petitioner's arrest and detention is illegal, improper and without any legal basis as no offence against the petitioner is disclosed and the petitioner has only 'become the guinea pig for wide publicity against boarders and/or black marketers by the respondents. .....

Shashikant A. Alavane Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2001BomCR(Cri)502; (2001)2BOMLR182; 2001CriLJ1503

..... there is no doubt that the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu, particularly para 7, would indicate that the detenu had a right to make representation to the state government against the detention order and should he wish to make such a representation the same was to be addressed to the secretary to the government of maharashtra, preventive detention, home department (special). ..... i may state that in the grounds of detention, the detenu was very clearly informed that, he had a right to make a representation to the state government, if he wished to make such a representation to the state government, he should address it to the secretary to the government of maharashtra (preventive detention), home department, mantralaya, mumbai-32. ..... the impugned order of detention was passed against the detenu on the ground that he was a dangerous person and it was necessary to detain him with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the said act.3. ..... in view of the nature of the said function which would affect the lives of a large number of slum dwellers, though it was a holiday and the deputy chief minister was busy with an extremely sensitive issue, the deputy chief minister attended the said function. ..... mendonca, commissioner of police, brihan mumbai in exercise of powers under section 3(1) of the m.p.d.a. .....

Sangita Bala Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

..... indeed, the petitioners are justified in pointing out that the order of detention refers to all the five activities provided for in section 3(1) of the said act, under clauses (i) to (v) thereof, empowering the detaining authority to detain any person with a view to preventing him from, in any manner, prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from indulging in specified prejudicial activities; whereas, the grounds of detention, at best, may spell out only activity ascribable to clauses (ii) and (v). ..... obviously, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority, is founded on the material placed before her that the detenu was involved in the commission of prejudicial activities and would continue with the prejudicial activities by taking help of others who were involved in smuggling, whose identity has not been disclosed. ..... reported in air 1980 sc 2129. ..... , air 1980 s.c. .....

Vishal Vijay Tamhanekar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, thro ...

Court : Mumbai

..... preventive detention is a form of precautionary state action, intended to prevent a person from indulging in a conduct, injurious to the society or the security of the state or public order, it has been recognised as a necessary evil and is tolerated in a free society in the larger interest of security of the state and maintenance of public order. ..... the other aspect is equally perplexing, and we presume unless otherwise proved that within the same department, absence for one or two days or a week of an officer, that too in the rank of a assistant, section officer, under secretary, deputy secretary does not affect the functioning to the extent made out in the affidavits of the ..... court will examine the types of grounds given for detention and consider whether such grounds could really weigh with an office several months later in forming a subjective satisfaction as to the necessity for preventive detention. ..... , the statements of all four were recorded under sections 108 of the customs act, 1962 ..... the proposal was never disclosed to the petitioners or the detenu, and it could not have ..... however, it seems that the sponsoring authority (presumably acting on the previous call for additional information dated 29th may 2015) submitted this information under cover of his letter dated 15th june ..... 3129 of 2015 seeks the quashing of an order dated 10th july 2015 passed under section 3(1) of the conservation of foreign exchange and preservation of smuggling activities act, 1974 ( cofeposa .....

Subhangi Tukaram Sawant Vs. R.H. Mendonca and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2001ALLMR(Cri)1819; 2001BomCR(Cri)152; (2001)4BOMLR631; 2001CriLJ3745; 2001(3)MhLj580

..... in one case a person ts punished to prove (sic on proof of) his guilt and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in section 8 of the act to prevent. ..... however, in our considered opinion none of the aforementioned two incidents can be said to be incidents affecting public order nor from these stray and causal acts the petitioner can be branded as a dangerous person within the meaning of section 2(c) of the act, who was habitually engaged in activities adversely affecting or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. ..... when this is the meaning, which is available to be assigned to the phrase by habit committing the offences, we find it clear that in the absence of any or even a single instance of conviction shown in the grounds furnished to the petitioner, there is no precedence of he being found to have committed the offences specified in the act (chapters xvi or xvii of the indian penal code and chapter v of the arms act). ..... before parting with this reference, we would like to refer to certain disturbing aspects as disclosed. .....

Abdul Basheer Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR423; 1999BomCR(Cri)423

..... gold and having satisfied it the prejudicial activities committed by the detenu and for future, the detaining and sponsoring authorities arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the smuggling activities of gold by the detenu were totally prejudicial one and apprehending that he would indulge in further prejudicial activities of similar nature, after having given all the statutory warnings and intimations to the detenu, the 2nd respondent has clamped preventive detention order against the detenu on 11-11-1997 and the said impugned order is since being canvassed ..... say that the home department received the communication from the government of kerala that the detention order was executed and therefore further action under section 7(1)(a) & (b) of the cofeposa act was not ..... we are not in a position to import the ratio of the same for the facts of the instant case for the reason that the factual matrix of that case is totally different and distinguished from the instant one and the case in hand wholly involves an interested transaction for the purpose of execution and that, even therefore, as rightly and justifiably explained by the detaining and sponsoring authorities, the said ground cannot be sustained. ..... however, the said documents were placed before me which has not affected the detention order in any ..... the officers of the air intelligence unit, asked him in the presence of the panchas whether he was carrying any gold in his baggage or on his person to which he replied in the .....