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 Page 10 of about 315 results (0.561 seconds)

Hari Prosad Agarwalla and anr. Vs. the State of Assam

Court : Guwahati

..... section 11(1), preventive detention act (act iv [4] of 1951) runs as follows:in any ease 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 and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit.this provision definitely lays down that the appropriate government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and sub-section (2) of section 11 says that where the advisory board has reported that there is in its opinion no ..... from other alleged irregularities, the order of detention was challenged only in one case as illegal on the ground that the period was not initially mentioned when notices of detention under section 3, preventive detention act 1950 was served upon the petitioner but hero the contention is that after the matter passed through the advisory board, a period ought to have been specified for which the detention would continue. ..... the government has to express its intention in a way at the time of passing an order, so that its implication may be known to the person whose interest is affected or whose personal liberty is ..... the petitions have been filed in both these cases tinder article 226 of the constitution of india for a writ of habeas corpus or appropriate writs with regard to the detention order passed by the assam government on the petitioners .....

Biswanath Agarwalla Vs. State

Court : Guwahati

..... this is an application under article 226 of the constitution of india by biswanath agarwalla for issue of appropriate writ against the government quashing an order of detention passed against him under section 3 of the preventive detention act (act iv of 1950) as amended by the preventive detention (amendment) act of 1951. 2. ..... - 'whatever might be the position under the act before its amendment in february, 1951, it is clear that the act as amended requires that every case of detention should be placed before an advisory board constituted under the act (section 9) and provides that if the board reports that there is sufficient causefor the detention 'the appropriate government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit. ..... his main ground for challenging the order of detention was that the advisory board was not properly constituted but subsequently he has added another ground by a fresh petition viz. ..... , the district magistrate, nowgong, and the superintendent of special jail, nowgong (assam) to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus or any such writ should not be issued against the order of detention passed against the petitioner. ..... a rule was issued on the chief secretary to the assam govt. ..... the state: of assam', cri. ..... 71 of 1951 (assam), analogous to criminal misc case no. .....

V.S. Sundaram and anr. Vs. Laisram Achou Singh

Court : Guwahati

Reported in : 1956CriLJ1411

..... the petitioners now want leave for filing an appeal to the honourable supreme court and it has been urged by the learned government advocate that as the arrest and detention of the opposite party were under the preventive detention act and this court could not properly look to the grounds of detention, the necessary leave of filing an appeal to the supreme court should be allowed.it has further been contended that even though the order under section 144, cr. p.c ..... lal' , it was held that the object of contempt proceeding is not to afford protection to judges personally, from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals; it is rather intended as a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected, if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the court is lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by it is weakened.for contempt proceedings, the intention or motive of the contemner is not essential if really the act has a tendency or is calculated to impair faith of the general public in a court of ..... frank moraes' 1954 assam 201 (air v 41) (pb) (w).in the present case, it has been found, as a fact, that the re-arrest of the opposite party under the preventive detention act, on grounds' which had been held to be illegal that very day, tended to shake the faith of the public in the court's ability to decide cases without fear or ..... the state of assam' 1953 assam 97 (air v 40) (r) and - 'ratanlal gupta .....

Mowu Vs. the Superintendent, Special Jail, Nowgong, Assam and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (1971)3SCC936; 1971(III)LC111(SC)

..... mowu angami was first detained by an order dated march 18, 1969 under section 3 of the preventive detention act, 1960. ..... it would appear that the district magistrate took cognizance of the said offence on being satisfied that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner and the said 131 other persons and issued warrants to the district magistrates of delhi and other places where the petitioner and those others were in detention under the preventive detention act, 1950, to place the petitioner and those others under arrest. ..... on the strength of the record of the courts at kohima and nowgong and the affidavit of the additional district magistrate, nowgong, we must reject the contention taken in the petition that the petitioner's detention has become illegal by reason of his never having been produced before a magistrate, as also the contention that the grounds for his arrest have not so far been disclosed to him. ..... in the meantime, the state of nagaland filed an application under section 526 of the code before the high court of assam and nagaland praying for the transfer of the case to the court of district magistrate, nowgong (assam) in view of the tense situation prevailing in nagaland. ..... sbiza for and on behalf of mowu angami challenging his present detention in the special jain at nowgong, assam.2. .....

V.S. Sundaram and anr. Vs. Laisram Achou Singh

Court : Guwahati

Reported in : 1956CriLJ1411

..... the petitioners now want leave for filing an appeal to the honourable supreme court and it has been urged by the learned government advocate that as the arrest and detention of the opposite party were under the preventive detention act and this court could not properly look to the grounds of detention, the necessary leave of filing an appeal to the supreme court should be allowed.it has further been contended that even though the order under section 144, cr. ..... air1954all308 , it was held that the object of contempt proceeding is not to afford protection to judges personally, from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals; it is rather intended as a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected, if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the court is lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by it is weakened.for contempt proceedings, the intention or motive of the contemner is not essential if really the act has a tendency or is calculated to impair faith of the general public in a court of ..... frank moraes' 1954 assam 201 (air v 41) (pb) (w).in the present case, it has been found, as a fact, that the re-arrest of the opposite party under the preventive detention act, on grounds' which had been held to be illegal that very day, tended to shake the faith of the public in the court's ability to decide cases without fear ..... the state of assam' 1953 assam 97 (air v 40) (r) and - 'ratanlal .....

D.M. Revanasiddaiah Vs. State of Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1952Kant85; AIR1952Mys85

..... the order, is attacked mainly on three grounds: (1) that the grounds furnished with the order of detention and the details of the grounds furnished later are quite insufficient and do not fall within clause (2) of section 3 of the preventive detention act;' (2) that the grounds are very vague and indefinite and (3) that the order in question is 'mala fide' and quite unnecessary and was secured by the police of davangere merely on account of disappointment that the ..... observed that the prisoner was in custody and the criminal proceedings were pending, and naturally the learned judges who decided that, case pointed out that it was obvious that pre-judicial conduct on the part of such a person was impossible when he was already in jail either undergoing sentence of imprisonment passed by a court of law or is awaiting, without being on bail, any investigation, inquiry or trial and that the exercise of power under the preventive detention act would in ..... of that court that normally a single dacoity or a number of dacoities cannot be held to affect prejudicially to the maintenance of public order to an extent calling for the application of the act and that such happenings can be normally dealt with under the preventive sections of the code of criminal procedure or other similar provisions, with great respect we are unable to accept the rather wide interpretation sought to be put upon that judgment by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ..... for the petitioner was decided by the assam high .....

Shri Ujjal Mandal Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1972SC1446; 1972CriLJ916; (1972)1SCC456; [1972]3SCR165; 1972(4)LC614(SC)

..... with the provisions of any law made by parliament under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).section 10 of the act provides that in every case where a detention order has been made under the act, the state government shall, within thirty days from the date of detention under the order, place before the board, the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order, and in case where the order has been made by an officer specified in sub-section (3) of section 3, also the report made by such officer under sub-section (4) of section 3 section 11 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the board ..... 1952 pep 124 with reference to the provisions of sections 10 and 11 of the preventive detention act, 1950, which are in pari materia with sections 11 and 12 of the act, and the court came to the conclusion that without confirming the detention order within 3 months of the date of detention, the detention of a person cannot be continued after the 3 months. ..... 1969 assam 14 the high court of assam, after considering the scheme of the preventive detention act, 1950, held that although the provisions of section 11(1) of that act does not in terms mention any time limit for confirming the order of detention, the time limit of 3 months is implicit in the entire scheme of the act.15. .....

Anopkunver Kantha Kunver and anr. Vs. State and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (1983)2GLR1235

..... but under the preventive detention act at least opportunity has to be afforded under article 22(5) of the constitution to a person to make representation against the order and, therefore, it is necessary that grounds must be available to him whenever he wants to make an effective written representation and, therefore, grounds must be written.26. mr. ..... in order to show how this interpretation is plausible, he relied on article 22(5) of the constitution which provides:22(5) when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.reliance is placed on article 22(5) of the constitution of india because the wording of section 50(1) of the code requires communication. ..... sanchaita investments and swapankumar guha : 1982crilj819 , and it was specifically observed that a first information report which does not allege or disclose that the essential requirements of the penal provision are prima facie satisfied, cannot form the foundation or constitute the starting point of a lawful investigation. ..... in the aforesaid case of gauhati high court, the question pertained to the arrest of ex-president of the assam college teachers' association, and head of the department of political science of the handique girl's college, gauhati. .....

Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1978SC597; (1978)1SCC248; [1978]2SCR621

..... made dependent on the subjective opinion of the passport authority as regards the necessity of exercising it on one or more of the grounds stated in the section, but the passport authority is required to record in writing a brief statement of reasons for impounding the passport and, save in certain exceptional circumstances, to supply a copy of such statement to the person affected, so that the person concerned can challenge the decision of the passport authority in appeal and the appellate authority can examine whether the reasons given by the passport authority are correct, and if so, whether' they justify the making of the order impounding the passport. ..... cooper's case, agreed that the maintenance of internal security act, 1971, which is a law of preventive detention, has to be tested in regard to its reasonableness with reference to article 19. ..... that the central government should have taken up this attitude in reply to the request of the petitioner to be supplied a copy of the statement of reasons, because ultimately, when the petition came to be filed, the central government did disclose the reasons in the affidavit in reply to the petition which shows that it was not really contrary to public interest and if we look at the reasons given in the affidavit in reply, it will be clear that no reasonable person could possibly have taken the view that the interests of the general public would be prejudiced by the disclosure of the reasons .....

Maya Ajit Satam Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary to ...

Court : Mumbai

..... after extracting the dictum in the said decision, in paragraph 9, in hemlata'scase, the apex court proceeded to hold that the rule laid down is that the prosecution or the absence of it is not an absolute bar to an order of preventive detention; the authority may prosecute the offender for an isolated act or acts of an offence for violation of any criminal law, but if it is satisfied that the offender has a tendency to go on violating such laws, then there will be no bar for the state to detain him under a preventive detention act in order to disable him to repeat such offences. ..... the plain language of section 8 of the cofeposa act is suggestive of making a representation against the preventive detention order to the state government on the basis of the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu. ..... every person whose interests are adversely affected as a result of the proceedings which have a serious import, is entitled to be heard in those proceedings and be assisted by a friend. ..... that material disclosed his stand that he was not involved in any criminal activities. ..... union of india, 1980 cri. l.j. .....