ABHAY SHRIDHAR AMBULKAR Vs. S V BHAVE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
LAWS(SC)-1990-12-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on December 17,1990

ABHAY SHRIDHAR AMBULKAR Appellant
VERSUS
S.V.BHAVE,COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

TARIK MASHKUR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1998-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU BHATIA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1998-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
DEBAJYOTI MAZUMDAR VS. STATE ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1998-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP DAS ALIAS PRATAP RAJ BANGSHI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1998-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
SENCHAMO EZUNG ALIAS MARK VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAZZAK VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1991-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHAJAD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2001-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
VELA ALIAS VELANGANI ALIAS JOHNEY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1991-10-84] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK RAMA UMBRAJKAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GREATER BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-1991-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
N P LOTLIKAR VS. C B I [LAWS(BOM)-1992-10-43] [REFERRED TO]
N P LOTLIKAR VS. C B I [LAWS(BOM)-1992-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
N NARADARAJAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2001-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
HIRAMAN HARISCHANDRA BHOIR VS. HIRAMAN HARISCHANDRA BHOIR [LAWS(BOM)-1998-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD VITHAL RANE VS. R H MENDONCA [LAWS(BOM)-2001-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. VELA ALIAS VELANGANI [LAWS(SC)-1993-3-92] [DISTINGUISHED]
ASHOK DADU MANGALE VS. A N ROY [LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
BABAR KHAN @ RASID HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND : SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND : DEPUTY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND : DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST SINGHBHUM [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
SOMU VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2000-7-126] [REFERRED TO]
M.S. RANI VS. DIST. MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR OF NORTH ARCOT AMBEDKAR DIST., VELLORE AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-1992-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
M.S. RANI VS. DIST. MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR OF NORTH ARCOT AMBEDKAR DIST., VELLORE AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-1992-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
AHESAN VS. HOME DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MPH)-2014-12-118] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHUN GOPE VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2010-3-90] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN SARMANBHAI JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-425] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAIN KHATIKA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-9-75] [REFERRED TO]
GUDDU ALIAS UMESH VS. DISTT. MAGISTRATE, INDORE AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-1994-4-92] [REFERRED TO]
HIRAMAN HARISCHANDRA BHOIR VS. O P BALI, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-1998-10-97] [REFERRED]
VIJAY ALIAS BALLU BHARATBHAI RAMANBHAI PATNI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-319] [REFERRED TO]
DILIPBHAI BHARATBHAI DHADHAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
YATINDRA VERMA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-6-17] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. - (1.)Abhay Sridhar Ambulkar-petitioner has been detained under the National Security Act, 1980 ("The Act"). The order of detention dated 12th February 1990 was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, who is the first respondent in these cases. The order was issued under Section 3 (2) of the Act with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention have been served to the petitioner along with the detention order. The petitioner challenged the validity of his detention in the High Court of Bombay by means of a Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition. Against the judgment of the High Court, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1407 of 1990 has been preferred. Simultaneously, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1248 of 1990 under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the same order of detention by raising a new ground which has not been taken before the High Court.
(2.)We have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused grounds of detention and the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has properly considered all the questions raised and we are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, rejected.
(3.)This takes us to the Writ Petition in which an additional question has been raised. The question relates to the validity of the Government order dated 6th January 1990 pursuant to which the Commissioner of Police made the detention order. It would be convenient to set out that order hereunder.
ORDER

Dated 6th January 1990

59. NATIONAL SECURITY ACT

1980

NO. NSA-2390/ 1/SPL-3(B) - Where as the Government of Maharashtra is satisfied that having regard to circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in the Greater Bombay Police Commissionerate, it is necessary that during the period commencing on 30th January, 1990 and ending on the 29th April, 1990, the Commissioner of Police and the said Commissioner should also exercise the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (65 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act')

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of the Section 3 of the said Act, the Government of Maharashtra hereby directs that for the period commencing on the 30th January 1990 and ending on 29th April 1990 the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay may also if satisfied as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 3,of the said Act exercise the powers conferred on the State Government by subsection (2) of Section 3 of the said Act.

By order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.