Gujarat High Court
SCA/6218/1996 of TALAB MUBIN SINDHI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 6 November 1996
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6218 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6218 of 1996
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR
============================================================
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
-------------------------------------------------------------- TALAB MUBIN SINDHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for Petitioner
Shri Kamal Mehta, AGP for the respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR
Date of decision: 06/11/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the last case against the petitioner was registered on 24.9.1996 and the order of detention was passed on 3rd May 1996. Therefore, there is a delay of about 8 months. Learned counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Pradeep Nilkanth Patarkar v. S. Ramamurthi, AIR 1994 SC 656. It is true that the delay ipso facto, in passing the order of detention, cannot be a ground for quashing the order of detention. In the present case the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Therefore, in my view this ground alone is sufficient to hold that the order of detention is illegal.
2. In view of the aforesaid the Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute.
-oOo-
karim*