State Of Maharashtra vs Ramesh Kumar Shobhraj Jain And Ors.
- SCC(1988) 1 SCC 597
- AIRAIR 1988 SC 2138
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
When a finding of fact in a High Court judgment rests on admissions or undisputed matters placed on record during the hearing, that finding cannot be challenged in a subsequent appeal without an affidavit from counsel who was present at the hearing establishing that the finding is factually incorrect; a bare assertion of factual error without such supporting evidence is insufficient to overturn the High Court's conclusion. Where the detaining authority has not had all the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention before it at the time those grounds were formulated and finalized, the detention order is vitiated and the habeas corpus petition must succeed, and such a judgment cannot be assailed merely on the basis of unsubstantiated contention regarding the facts.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. The habeas corpus petition filed by the respondents was allowed by the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 13.2.1987 where it has been specifically stated that "It is not disputed that at the time the grounds were formulated, the detaining authority had before it documents only at Serial No. 6 was actually received and considered by the detaining authority on 24th February 1986". The documents were really received by the detaining authority on 24.2.1986 and it is on the basis of this that the learned Judge allowed the habeas corpus petition.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that this statement of fact contained in the judgment is not correct and it is contended that this has been in the special leave petition. But it is clear that the affidavit of the counsel who was present before the High Court of Bombay when this matter was heard, has not been filed. In such a situation, we cannot accept any statement excepting the statement made in the judgment about the facts.
3. The learned Judge on the basis on this admitted situation of facts come to the conclusion that on the date on which the grounds were finalised all the documents on which reliance is placed were not before the detaining authority and in such a situation the judgment of the High Court could not be assailed. The only contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that this statement of fact as quoted above that it is not disputed that all documents were not before the detaining authority is not correct. Except this no other ground is raised and as stated earlier this contention cannot be accepted without an affidavit filed by the learned Counsel who was present at the hearing in the High Court. We therefore see no reason to entertain this appeal. It is therefore dismissed. The order passed by the High Court is maintained. It appears that the respondent has been taken into custody under orders of this Court on grant of leave. It is therefore directed that he be set at liberty forthwith.
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