TARANNUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1998-2-2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
February 05,1998
TARANNUM
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ANGOORI DEVI FOR RAM RATAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]HARPREET KAUR HARVINDER SINGH BEDI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
DIPAKBHAI MANGABHAI SOSA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SURAT CITY [LAWS(GJH)-1998-12-48] [REFERRED 3.]NIRAV KHEMSHANKER VYAS VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(GJH)-1999-6-29] [REFERRED]
SANJAI SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1999-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
UDAI VEER SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1999-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV VASHISTHA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1999-12-73] [REFERRED TO]
SANT SINGH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-1999-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA ALIAS GITPITIA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(DLH)-2000-10-24] [REFERRED]
SURESH CHANDRA KATARE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2001-7-152] [REFERRED]
NIZAMUDDIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2002-1-72] [REFFERED TO : 1998 SCC (CRI) 1037 : 1998 CRI LJ 1414 : 1998 AIR SCW 785 3]
PADMA SAHU VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1999-7-30] [REFERRED]
NAIMUDDIN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2004-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
K Jayaraman VS. Commissioner of Police [LAWS(MAD)-2003-9-159] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-1-179] [REFERRED TO]
ELAVARASAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, CHENNAI AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CUDDALORE [LAWS(MAD)-2002-6-155] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP SAHU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2012-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
NARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2014-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHE @ LAXMAN BAG VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2017-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed by the wife of one Imran Ahmad alias Kheer, who has been detained under the National Security Act, 1980 by the order dated 27-4-97 under challenge. The petitioner challenges the Order of detention substantially on the ground that the grounds of detention do not have any nexus to the maintenance of public order. It is also contended that there was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu by the concerned authorities.
(2.)The above complaints in the petition are denied by the respondents by filing a counter-affidavit.
(3.)We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
(2.)The above complaints in the petition are denied by the respondents by filing a counter-affidavit.
(3.)We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.