The object behind the requirement of furnishing translated copies of the documents in the language known to the detenu is to enable him to know the contents thereof in order to make an effective representation. In the instant case, admittedly, the only language known to the detenu is Kannada and except the detention order all other material is either in Telugu or in English, the languages with which the detenu is not acquainted. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is not sustainable and the same is, accordingly, quashed.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HONBLE MS. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI                

WRIT PETITION No.37729 of 2016  

14-06-2017

Ruksana Parveen W/o Shaik Abdul Rehman ..... Petitioner

The State of A.P. reptd by its Chief Secretary General Administration Department, Velagapudi and three others .....Responden

Counsel for the Petitioner:Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande
                        for Mr.Vikas Joshi
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.C.S.Surya Prakash
                             Special Government Pleader
                                                                       
<Gist:

>Head Note:

                                                                       
?  Cases Referred:
  (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 531
  (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 413
  2016 (2) ALD (Crl.) 966

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY        
AND
HONBLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI      

WRIT PETITION No.37729 of 2016  

Date:14.6.2017

The Court made the following:


ORDER: (per Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

        This Writ Petition is filed for issue of Writ of Habeas
Corpus directing the respondents to release Shaik Abdul
Rehaman @ Abdul Rahimin @ Rehaman @ Rahiman      
(hereinafter referred to as the detenu) after quashing
proceedings, vide Ref.No.C1/917/M/2016,  dated 13.10.2016, of
respondent No.2 and G.O.Rt.No.2173, General Administration
(Law and Order) Department, dated 22.10.2016, of respondent
No.1.
        The only ground urged at the hearing is that the detenu,
who studied only up to 4th Class, was not supplied with
translated copies of the material relied upon by the respondents
in the grounds of detention, except the detention order, into the
language known to him, i.e., Kannada, as a result of which,
serious prejudice has been caused to him. In support of this plea,
Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner, placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex
Court in Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria V. Union of India and
Powanammal V. State of T.N.  and the judgment of this Court
in Renu Kumar Bagalakoti V. State of Telangana and
others .
     In Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria (1st supra), the Supreme
Court accepted the plea of the detenu that requirement of
Article-22(5) of the Constitution of India is that the detaining
authority should not only communicate to the detenu the
grounds on which the order of detention has been made, but
also furnish all the statements and documents relied upon in the
grounds of detention within the stipulated time.
       In Powanammal (2nd supra), the Supreme Court held
that non-supply of copies of documents relied on in the grounds
of detention in the language known to the detenu is fatal and the
detention order is liable to be quashed on that ground alone.
      In Renu Kumar Bagalakoti (3rd supra), a Division Bench
of this Court speaking through one of us (CVNR, J) held that
non-supply of translated copies of material, on which reliance
was placed in the order of detention, vitiates the same.
     The object behind the requirement of furnishing translated
copies of the documents in the language known to the detenu is
to enable him to know the contents thereof in order to make an
effective representation.
        In the instant case, admittedly, the only language known to
the detenu is Kannada and except the detention order all other
material is either in Telugu or in English, the languages with
which the detenu is not acquainted. Therefore, the impugned
order of detention is not sustainable and the same is, accordingly,
quashed.
        The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
        As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,
WPMP.No.52858 of 2016 filed by the petitioner for interim
relief is disposed of as infructuous.

____________________________    
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY      
_______________  
JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI  
14th June 2017

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515