STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. P K SHAMSUDEEN
LAWS(SC)-1992-7-16
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
July 21,1992
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Appellant
VERSUS
P.K.SHAMSUDEEN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS. ALKA SUBHASH GADIA [DISTINGUISHED]K P M BASHEER K P M BASHEER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
N K BAPNA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MANSUKH CHHAGAN LAL BHATT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1994-10-29] [REFERRED )]MANSUKH CHHAGAN LAL BHATT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1994-11-17] [REFERRED PREM SINGH'S CASE,1994 (2) SCALE 747 REFERRED)SUBHASH MULJIMAL GANDHI'S CASE 1994 (5) J.T. ]
MOHMAD YUSUF SALEMOHMAD MEMAN VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR JAMNAGAR [LAWS(GJH)-1992-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA MISRA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1997-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA MISRA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1997-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
BALLABH CHAUBEY VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE FINANCE MATHURA [LAWS(ALL)-1997-1-96] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2001-5-39] [REFERRED TO]
GIRIJA BARUAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-1993-1-5] [REFFERED TO 17.]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NAND KISHORE VERMA [LAWS(CAL)-1993-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDERLAL JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1995-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
BAKULA BANUPRASAD MEHTA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1995-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH VS. UNION TERRITORY NEW DELHI [LAWS(P&H)-1994-6-6] [RELIED ON]
DILIPBHAI SURESHBHAI SHANSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-75] [REFERRED TO (8)]
RAFIK DADUBHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-76] [REFERRED TO BETWEEN 11)]
NARESH KUMAR GOEL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2003-9-76] [REFERRED TO]
JIGARBHAI BABABHAI RAVAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THRO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
RAJUBHAI RANCHHODBHAI SONI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAMMAD GUFRAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-9-177] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIRKHAN AHMEDKHAN PATHAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND 1 ANOTHER [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-230] [REFERRED TO]
KANUJI VIHAJI THAKORE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-9-165] [REFERRED TO]
NIKUNJ DINESHBHAI BHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-123] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1996-10-68] [REFERRED]
ABDUL AZEEZ VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-1993-3-80] [REFFERED TO]
SANTOSH RAJARAM BABAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-113] [REFERRED TO]
FIROZ @ KANMELIYO S/O ABDUL AZIZ SHAIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-134] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH PURSOTTAMDAS CHRISTIAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-135] [REFERRED TO]
AJAYKUMAR VRAJLAL BAROT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-146] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDBHAI RANAJI JOSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-9-187] [REFERRED TO]
DIPAK RAJARAM BABAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-154] [REFERRED TO]
CHIRAG @ VIJAY BHIKHUBHAI CHTRABHUJ VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-9-208] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJESH KISHORSINH CHAUHAN & ANR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-158] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT @ BHARAT MARCHU KEDARNATH SONKAR VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - NAVSARI AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-168] [REFERRED TO]
ZAHIRUDDIN GYASUDDIN SHAIKH VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(GJH)-2013-9-253] [REFERRED TO]
THAKOR SHAKRAJI VARVAJI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-373] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL VALLABHBHAI MADAM VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-264] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMJI M MAKWANA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-387] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI MALI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-279] [REFERRED TO]
IRFAN KALLUBHAI ANSARI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-280] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. VS. NAND KISHORE VERMA [LAWS(CAL)-1993-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
KASTURJI GALAJI DEVDA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-396] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
Bharucha, J. -
(1.)Special leave to appeal granted.
(2.)This is an appeal against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras issuing a writ of mandamus against the present appellant directing it to forbear from implementing the order of detention issued by it against one Sheik Ahamed Hajee, son of Mammoo under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA').
(3.)The detention order was issued on 8th March 1988. On 5th April 1989 the detenu filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (being Writ Petition No.C.O.4202/W/ 89) impugning the detention order. The detenu stated therein that he was a resident of Aberdeen Bazar, Port Blair, and carried on business therefrom. The writ petition was admitted and the present appellant was restrained from detaining the detenu for a period of two weeks. On 19th April 1989 the injunction was extended to operate pending the disposal of the writ petition. On 12th April 1991, upon consideration of the counter-affidavit filed by the present appellant, the order of injunction was vacated. Thereupon, on 10th July 1991, the present writ petition was filed in Madras by the respondent to this appeal, who is a nephew of the detenu. By the judgment and order under appeal the writ petition was allowed upon the ground that there had been inordinate and unexplained delay in the implementation of the detention order. Emphasis was placed upon the fact that an advocate of Coimbatore had sworn an affidavit on 12th November 1991 wherein, as counsel for the detenu, he stated that the detenu had appeared before the Magistrat.e's Court in the related criminal proceedings taken against him under the Customs Act on various dates between 4th December 1987 and 3rd August 1988, which statements were, admittedly, correct.
(2.)This is an appeal against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras issuing a writ of mandamus against the present appellant directing it to forbear from implementing the order of detention issued by it against one Sheik Ahamed Hajee, son of Mammoo under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA').
(3.)The detention order was issued on 8th March 1988. On 5th April 1989 the detenu filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (being Writ Petition No.C.O.4202/W/ 89) impugning the detention order. The detenu stated therein that he was a resident of Aberdeen Bazar, Port Blair, and carried on business therefrom. The writ petition was admitted and the present appellant was restrained from detaining the detenu for a period of two weeks. On 19th April 1989 the injunction was extended to operate pending the disposal of the writ petition. On 12th April 1991, upon consideration of the counter-affidavit filed by the present appellant, the order of injunction was vacated. Thereupon, on 10th July 1991, the present writ petition was filed in Madras by the respondent to this appeal, who is a nephew of the detenu. By the judgment and order under appeal the writ petition was allowed upon the ground that there had been inordinate and unexplained delay in the implementation of the detention order. Emphasis was placed upon the fact that an advocate of Coimbatore had sworn an affidavit on 12th November 1991 wherein, as counsel for the detenu, he stated that the detenu had appeared before the Magistrat.e's Court in the related criminal proceedings taken against him under the Customs Act on various dates between 4th December 1987 and 3rd August 1988, which statements were, admittedly, correct.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.