KUNDANBHAI DULABHAI SHAIKH versus DISTT. MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD AND ORS.

KUNDANBHAI DULABHAI SHAIKH versus DISTT. MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD AND ORS.

The failure of the State Government and in consequence the Central Government to expeditiously consider and dispose of the petitioners' representations against their preventive detention, without justifiable explanation for the delay, constitutes a violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. Consequently, their continued detention is illegal, unconstitutional, and the detention orders must be set aside.

Parties
Petitioner: Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh; Respondents: District Magistrate, Ahmedabad and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Original Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 (habeas Corpus) / Final Decision (judgment After Hearing Both Sides)
Outcome
Writ petitions allowed; orders of detention quashed.
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Right to Representation, Delay in Consideration of Representation, Fundamental Rights Under Article 22(5), Statutory Rights Under Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Right to Representation Delay in Consideration of Representation Fundamental Rights Under Article 22(5) Statutory Rights Under Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh

Petitioner

District Magistrate, Ahmedabad and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Original Writ Petition (criminal) Under Article 32 (habeas Corpus) / Final Decision (judgment After Hearing Both Sides)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delayed disposal of representation against preventive detention vitiates the order of detention
  2. 2 Whether the detenu’s right to representation under Article 22(5) and Section 8 of the Prevention of Black Marketing Act was violated

Ratio Decidendi

The failure of the State Government and in consequence the Central Government to expeditiously consider and dispose of the petitioners' representations against their preventive detention, without justifiable explanation for the delay, constitutes a violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. Consequently, their continued detention is illegal, unconstitutional, and the detention orders must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Writ petitions allowed; orders of detention quashed.

Orders

  • Petitioners to be released from detention as continued detention is illegal and unconstitutional in view of the unexplained delay in disposal of representation.