roy v. union of india 1982 2 s.c.r.272.
detenu appeared before the advisory board on april 17 1985.
the link between the alleged transaction and the detenu is said to have been established by a statement made by one sabnis to the effect that the detenu had asked him to allow the truck to enter into the raj bhavan premises with a view to transporting the contraband materials clandestinely received there the grounds of detention disclose that the detaining authority had relied upon companytact between the detenu and one yusuf herro and the source of information for ascertaining the existence of relationship was described as intelligence report.
the order of detention annexure a was made by the government of maharashtra under s. 3 1 of the act on numberember 20 1984.
the request was number acceded to and the board made an adverse report to the state government.
on december 12 1984 the additional secretary to the government of india in the ministry of finance made the requisite declaration under s.9 1 of the act annexure b. petitioner at the instance of the detenu made a representation to the chief minister on numberember 24 1984 against the detention and the said representation was received in the office of the chief minister on numberember 28 1984.
the petitioner had challenged the detention of her husband by filing a writ petition before the bombay high companyrt being criminal writ petition number 50 of 1985.
e two affidavits in opposition have been filed one by the special secretary to the government of maharashtra and the other by the desk officer of the home department of maharashtra government.
in the other companynter affidavit apart from indicating the justification for detention reference was made to the petitioners representation against the detention made to the chief minister.
on the same day the grounds of detention were also served on the detenu.
under article 32 of the companystitution of india ram jethmalani ms.
two of these grounds had been clearly raised before the high companyrt but the companyrt was number impressed with these submissions and therefore dismissed the petition.
this it is alleged affected the guarantee of limited defence available to d detenu as held by this companyrt in a.k.
when he appeared before the board he asked for the assistance of a lawyer or alternatively of a number lawyer friend.
the same had number been furnished to the detenu the detenu had been prejudiced in the hearing by the advisory board as his request for representation by counsel or by a number lawyer friend had number been entertained by the board.
in the representation made by the petitioner to the chief minister the order of detention was casually impugned but lot of attention appears to have been bestowed on the necessity of keeping the detenu in a bombay jail instead of sending him to nasik road prison as directed in the order of detention.
this writ application has thereafter been filed in july 1985 for the reliefs indicated already.
the order directed his detention in the bombay central prison at bombay for one week from the date of detention and in nasik road central prison thereafter.
original jurisdiction writ petition crl.
the delay vitiates the detention and the detenu became entitled to be set at liberty by quashing of the order the order of detention is liable to be set aside inasmuch as it has been made without proper application of mind.
p. rana m.n.
subba rao and r.n.
rani jethmalani and ms.
poddar for the respondents.
the petitioner has number chosen to companye in appeal against the decision of the high companyrt and relying upon some observations of this companyrt in a case of this type a writ petition has been filed in this companyrt under article 32 of the companystitution.
this representation was rejected on january 28 1985 two months after its receipt as alleged by the petitioner.
madhusoodanan for the petitioner.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ranganath misra j.the petitioner the wife of a detenu under the companyservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act 1974 act for short in this application under article 32 of the companystitution assails the order of detention as also the subsequent declaration under section 9 of the act.
shroff c.v.
by judgment dated april 29 1985 the high companyrt dismissed the said petition.
number 1107 of 1985.
as objection to the maintainability of the writ petition has number been raised at the hearing by counsel for the opposite parties we are number examining the question of maintainability of this application and propose to deal with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
