State Legal Aid Committee, J & K vs State Of J & K And Ors
- SCC(2005) 9 SCC 667
- Neutral2004 INSC 646
- AIRAIR 2005 SC 1270
- SCR[2004] Supp (5) SCR 1090
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a detaining authority claims to have communicated grounds of detention to a detainee under Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, but the detainee refuses to receive the detention order or sign acknowledgment, the State must place on record an affidavit from the official attempting service and an endorsement documenting the refusal; absent such corroborating material evidence, the statutory requirement of disclosure and communication of grounds cannot be said to have been complied with, and the detention order is liable to be quashed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Though several questions have been raised in this petition, it is not necessary to deal with them in detail as we find that there is no definite material to show that the requirements of Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act. 1978 (in short the 'Act') requiring the grounds of order of detention to be disclosed/communicated to the person affected by the order has been complied with. Though, in the affidavit filed by State, it has been stated that the contents of the warrants and grounds of detention were served, read over and explained to the assessee and he was informed about his right to make a representation against the detention, if he so desired, there is no material placed on record to substantiate this stand. It is stated in the affidavit that the detenue refused to receive copy of the detention order and also refused to put his signatures on the documents. The least the State could have done is to file an affidavit of the person who wanted to serve the relevant documents and an endorsement to the effect that there was refusal. Even the name of the official has not been indicated in the affidavit. That would have been sufficient to comply with the requirements of Section 13 of the Act.
Though a prayer for extension of time is made to file the details, we find that the currency of the detention order is expiring on 06.11.2004. Therefore, we do not accept the prayer for extension of time. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no bar on a fresh order of detention being passed. We do not express any opinion in this regard. In the present proceedings, the order of detention of the detenue is quashed. This however, shall not stand in the way of such action being taken by the State and/or any authority in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free