Smt.Rupali Pawan Arora v. Shri Ramrao Wagh
Case Details
Summary
A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.
Precedent status
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.
Original judgment text
by me against Copies except section (1) section 3 documents placed before enclosed identifying particulars witness/victim in connection with the grounds mentioned in paragraph No. 8 to 8(2) below.".
4. Now paragraph 4 grounds detention 28 Detaining Authority relied. He which, according him, registered different Police Stations against detenu. The learned counsel petitioner submits Detaining Authority relied cases, material pertaining furnished detenu prejudice caused detenu effective representation negates mandate Article 22 Constitution India. He submits Act. ( 3 ) relevant material Detaining Authority relies framing subjective opinion not supplied to the detenu, the detention cannot be sustained and law on this question is well settled.
5. The learned APP dispute relevant material consideration Detaining Authority detention cannot supplied detenu, sustained. But submits Detaining Authority material mentioned paragraph 4 a background material and he had not relied on it for the purposes of arriving at the subjective satisfaction.
6. The Detaining Authority affidavit stated, "I although I stated opening grounds detention present detention issued grounds mentioned 4 8(2) grounds detention, however, contents 4(a) 5 In preamble prejudicial activities paragraph counter detenu.". affidavit, Detaining Authority stated, statements 1 grounds "I detention grounds 4 8(2) a typographical mistake cannot ( 4 ) supply documents activities detenu mentioned 4 5 of the grounds of detention, deprived the detenu of his right to make effective representation.".
7. The reading grounds detention Detaining Authority mentioned reasons coming subjective satisfaction reasons stated grounds mentioned paragraphs 4 8(2) consideration. Therefore, affidavit, himself emphatically stated grounds paragraphs 4 detention. If material mentioned 8(2) a background material a typographical mistake a typographical mistake, material could not have been taken into consideration even as a background material.
8. For reasons, petitioner deprived effective representation and as such the detention cannot be sustained.
9. The learned counsel petitioner relied judgment Criminal Writ Petition ( 5 ) No.1452 2001 - Shri Sayyed Nasir Haider v. Shri M.N.Singh & ors. decided
17.01.2002. In similar facts, High Court quashed detention taking a grounds detention, Detaining Authority estopped taking a different stand. Certain grounds learned counsel petitioner, allowing petition grounds mentioned hereinabove, we do not propose to go to those grounds.
10. In result, petition allowed. The detention D.O. No.PD/MPDA/1552/2008
29.02.2008 issued Section 3(1) M.P.D.A. Act, Navi 1981 (Amend 1996) Commissioner Police, Mumbai against detenu-Shri Pawan Kharetilal Arora quashed aside. The detenu-Shri Pawan Kharetilal Arora released forthwith, required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL