text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
In a case of this nature,we do not think,in view of the admitted facts,that we would not permit Appellant to raise the said questions Ratio |
So far as the question of non-placement of material documents before the detaining authority is concerned,we may notice the following dates: (i FAC |
By a letter dated 5.7.2002,the authorities of DRI stated that Appellant stood exonerated for earlier years after detailed examination FAC |
ii FAC |
By a letter dated 20.12.2004,the authorities of DRI stated that transactions after 11.10.2003 were not under scrutiny and by letters dated 28.2.2005 and 7.3.2005,the bank accounts of Appellant were defreezed FAC |
iii FAC |
By reason of the Civil Court by orders dated 7.5.2004 and 31.5.2004,the bank accounts of M/s FAC |
Girnar and Shri Amar were defreezed FAC |
iv FAC |
By an order dated 13.8.2004,the Tribunal ordered release of goods FAC |
v) By orders dated 31.8.2004 and 28.10.2004,the Civil Judge directed release of documents to Appellant FAC |
vi FAC |
By an order dated 18.11.2004,the Civil Court issued contempt notice to the authorities of DRI for non-release of documents and the authorities of DRI made a statement before the court that the documents are being returned FAC |
We have noticed hereinbefore that learned Additional Solicitor General contended that Appellant obstructed the proceedings by initiating various civil litigations Ratio |
But,indisputably,those documents involving the civil court proceedings were not placed before the detaining authority Ratio |
If the same had not been done,not only the delay,in issuing the order of detention stood unexplained but also thereby the order itself would become vitiated Ratio |
Furthermore,the civil court proceedings were over on 19.11.2004 Ratio |
Evidently,the detaining authority did not take immediate steps to detain Appellant Ratio |
Why the documents pertaining to the proceedings of the Civil Court had not been placed before the detaining authority has not been explained Ratio |
On their own showing,Respondents admit that they were relevant documents Ratio |
The question has been considered by this Court in Rajinder Arora 2006 Indlaw SC 87 (supra) stating: "Admittedly,furthermore,the status report called for from the Customs Department has not been taken into consideration by the competent authorities PRE |
A Division Bench of this Court in K.S.Nagamuthu v PRE |
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.[2005 (9) SCALE 534 2005 Indlaw SC 748] struck down an order of detention on the ground that the relevant material had been withheld from the detaining authority; which in that case was a letter of the detenu retracting from confession made by him PRE |
In P.Saravanan v PRE |
State of T.N.and Others [(2001) 10 SCC 212],it was stated: "When we went through the grounds of detention enumerated by the detaining authority we noticed that there is no escape from the conclusion that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority was the cumulative result of all the grounds menti... |
It is difficult for us to say that the detaining authority would have come to the subjective satisfaction solely on the strength of the confession attributed to the petitioner dated 7-11-1999,particularly because it was retracted by him PRE |
It is possible to presume that the confession made by the co-accused Sowkath Ali would also have contributed to the final opinion that the confession made by the petitioner on 7-11-1999 can safely be relied on PRE |
What would have been the position if the detaining authority was apprised of the fact that Sowkath Ali had retracted his confession,is not for us to make a retrospective judgment at this distance of time PRE |
In Ahamed Nassar v PRE |
State of Tamil Nadu and Others [(1999) 8 SCC 473 1999 Indlaw SC 778],this Court opined: "The question is not whether the second part of the contents of those letters was relevant or not but whether they were placed before the detaining authority for his consideration PRE |
There could be no two opinions on it PRE |
It contains the very stand of the detenu of whatever worth PRE |
What else would be relevant if not this PRE |
It may be that the detaining authority might have come to the same conclusion as the sponsoring authority but its contents are relevant which could not be withheld by the sponsoring authority PRE |
The letter dated 19-4-1999 reached the sponsoring authority and reached well within time for it being placed before the detaining authority PRE |
There is an obligation cast on the sponsoring authority to place it before the detaining authority,which has not been done PRE |
Even the letter dated 23-4-1999 which reached the Secretary concerned at 3.00 p.m.on 26-4-1999 was much before the formal detention order dated 28-4-1999.The Secretary concerned was obliged to place the same before the detaining authority PRE |
The respondent authority was not right in not placing it as it contains not only what is already referred to in the bail application dated 1-4-1999 but something more PRE |
The statements of Appellant and Prabhjot Singh were noticed by the detaining authority PRE |
It had specifically been referred to in extenso in the order of detention PRE |
It is,however,stated that the records were tampered with at the instance of Appellant PRE |
The self-inculpatory statements of Appellant and that of Prabhjot Singh were said to have been taken off the file PRE |
Respondents contended that on first information report was registered against Appellant as also one sepoy Narender Singh PRE |
But the said information report was registered only on 6.4.2005 and not prior to the date of order of detention PRE |
In paragraph 36 of the order of detention,the detaining authority stated: "In view of the facts mentioned above,I have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that you have through your acts of omission and commission indulged in prejudicial activities as narrated above FAC |
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence,the well planned manner in which you have engaged yourself in such prejudicial activities and your role therein as brought out above,all of which reflect your high potentiality and propensity to indulge in such prejudicial activities in future,I am satisfied that there ... |
We have been taken through the order of detention Ratio |
The statements of Appellant and the said Prabhjot Singh were recorded therein in extenso Ratio |
Recording of such statement must have been made from the xeroxed copies of such documents which were available with the detaining authority Ratio |
The self-inculpatory statements of Appellant as also Prabhjot Singh purported to have been made in terms of S.108 of the Customs Act were required to be considered before the order of detention could be passed Ratio |
The same was not done Ratio |
The original of such documents might not been available with the detaining authority but admittedly the xeroxed copies were Ratio |
It has not been denied or disputed that even the xeroxed copies of the said documents had not been supplied to the detenue Ratio |
It may be true that Appellant in his representation dated 14.06.2005 requested for showing him the original documents referred to or mentioned in the grounds of detention but then at least the xeroxed copies thereof should have been made available to him Ratio |
Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that due to non-supply of documents which were not vital or have merely been referred to as incidental,the order of detention may not become vitiated as was been held by this Court in Kamarunnissa v PRE |
Union of India and Another Ratio |
1991) 1 SCC 128 1990 Indlaw SC 85].The said decision was rendered in a different fact situation PRE |
In the said decision,this Court stated the law,thus: " If,merely an incidental reference is made to some part of the investigation concerning a co-accused in the grounds of detention which has no relevance to the case set up against the detenus it is difficult to understand how the detenus could contend that they were ... |
It is not sufficient to say that the detenus were not supplied the copies of the documents in time on demand but it must further be shown that the non-supply has impaired the detenu's right to make an effective and purposeful representation PRE |
Demand of any or every document,however irrelevant it may be for the concerned detenu,merely on the ground that there is a reference thereto in the grounds of detention,cannot vitiate an otherwise legal detention order PRE |
No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but what is essential is that the detenu must show that the failure to supply the documents before the meeting of the Advisory Board had impaired or prejudiced his right,however slight or insignificant it may be PRE |
In the present case,except stating that the documents were not supplied before the meeting of the Advisory Board,there is no pleading that it had resulted in the impairment of his right nor could counsel for the petitioners point out any such prejudice PRE |
We are,therefore,of the opinion that the view taken by the Bombay High Court in this behalf is unassailable PRE |
What is,therefore,relevant was as to whether the documents were material FAC |
If the documents were material so as to enable the detenue to make an effective representation which is his constitutional as also statutory right,non-supply thereof would vitiate the order of detention FAC |
It is a trite law that all documents which are not material are not necessary to be supplied Ratio |
What is necessary to be supplied is the relevant and the material documents,but,thus,all relevant documents must be supplied so as to enable the detenue to make an effective representation which is his fundamental right u/art.22(5) of the Constitution of India Ratio |
Right to make an effective representation is also a statutory right.[See Sunila Jain v Ratio |
2006) 3 SCC 321 2006 Indlaw SC 65 Ratio |
In this case,the statements of Appellant and Prabhjot Singh,in our opinion,were material Ratio |
They could not have been withheld Ratio |
If original of the said documents were not available,xeroxed copies thereof could have been made available to him Ratio |
The detaining authority moreover while relying on the said documents in one part of the order of detention could not have stated in another part that he was not relying thereupon Ratio |
The very fact that he had referred to the said statements in ex tenso is itself a pointer to the fact that he had relied upon the said documents Ratio |
Even in the earlier part of the impugned order of detention,i.e.detaining authority appears to have drawn his own conclusions Ratio |
In view of our findings aforementioned,it is not necessary to consider the contention raised by Mr RPC |
Mukul Rohtagi that order of detention suffers from non-application of mind RPC |
The judgment of the High Court,therefore,cannot be sustained RPC |
It is set aside accordingly and the order of detention passed against Appellant is quashed RPC |
The appeal is allowed RPC |
No costs RPC |
Appeal allowed RPC |
This appeal by Special Leave arises out of a judgment and order dated 1st March,2005 FAC |
rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal,holding that they did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim and counter claim made by the parties FAC |
In order to appreciate the issue,requiring determination,a few relevant facts may be stated FAC |
The appellant M/s FAC |
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is a Government of India Undertaking,under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas and is engaged in refining,distributing and selling of petroleum products all over the country FAC |
The respondent M/s FAC |
Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited is engaged in the business of shipping and allied activities and owns a fleet of tanker vessels for charter,including the vessel known as JAG PRAJA FAC |
An agreement,called the Time Charter Party in legal parlance,was entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 6th May,1997 for letting on hire vessels for a period of two years from 22nd September,1996 to 30th June,1997 and from 1st July,1997 to 30th June,1998,on the terms and conditions set out in the said... |
However,before the Charter Party was to come to an end,on 29th June,1998,the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short IOC ),acting as agent of the appellant,issued a fax to various ship owners,including the respondent herein,requesting them to extend the validity of the Charter Party Agreement dated 6th May,1997 beyon... |
The respondent agreed to the said proposal FAC |
Accordingly,on 29th June,1998 an addendum was signed between the parties whereby the validity period of Charter Party was extended for one month with an option for two further extensions for a period of 15 days each FAC |
The terms and conditions; exceptions and exemptions contained in the Charter Party dated 6th May,1997 remained unaltered FAC |
The parties are ad idem that the Charter Party dated 6th May,1997 was extended till 31st August,1998 FAC |
It appears that since Charter Party dated 6th May,1997 was coming to an end on 31st August,1998,the Oil Companies sought permission of the Oil Co-ordination Committee,a wing of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas for further extension of the Charter Party FAC |
However,the Oil Coordination Committee,by their fax message dated 26th August,1998,declined the request of the Oil Companies,including the appellant,for further extension of Charter Party beyond 31st August,1998.The said fax message was an internal communication between the Oil Coordination Committee and the Oil Compan... |
Thereafter,in September,1998,the IOC for and on behalf of the Oil Industry,floated a fresh tender for carriage of petroleum products along the Indian coast on time charter basis for a period of one year commencing from 1st September,1998 to 31st August,1999,on the terms and conditions set out in the tender document FAC |
In response to the said tender,the respondent and other vessel owners submitted their bids FAC |
It seems that being aggrieved of the decision of the IOC to invite revised price bids after opening of the sealed tenders,one of the bidders filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court,questioning the said decision FAC |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.