# Government of India v. Smt. Alka

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 141
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-02-16
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/government-of-india-v-smt-alka-39834
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001

141
the learned counsel can not be accepted. It
has not been pleaded in the W.S. that the
notice of termination of tenancy is not of
the entire premises. It is also not
specifically pleaded in the W.S. as to
which portion of the premises the notice
does not relate or it relates to some
portion not in the tenancy of the
revisionist. The notice cannot be held to
be invalid on this ground.

13. After considering the entire
arguments, I do not find any ground to
interfere in the judgment and decree of
the court below. The revision is fit to be
dismissed. However, it may be mentioned
that it has also been argued by the learned
counsel for the revisionist that the
revisionist is an old tenant of the premises
in dispute and is carrying on his business.

14. In view of this, the revision is
dismissed. However, the revisionist is
allowed three months' time to vacate the
premises in dispute.

&5,0,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -
 -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF :ULW 1R RI

3DZDQ .XPDU *XSWD
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
8QLRQ RI ,QGLD DQG RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $' *LUL 6QU $GYRFDWH
6KUL 6KDVKDQN 6KHNKDU *LUL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 6DQMD\ .XPDU 6LQJK

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD ± $UWLFOH ± WKHUH
FDQQRW EH DQ\ DEVROXWH SURSRVLWLRQ LQ
ODZ
WKDW
D
SHUVRQ
FKDOOHQJLQJ
D
GHWHQWLRQ
RUGHU
XQGHU
WKH
16$
RU
&2)(326$ PXVW LQ DOO FDVHV VXUUHQGHU
EHIRUH KH FDQ ILOH D SHWLWLRQ +HOG LQ
SDUD ±
7KHUH
FDQQRW
EH
DQ\
DEVROXWH
SURSRVLWLRQ
LQ
ODZ
WKDW
D
SHUVRQ
FKDOOHQJLQJ D GHWHQWLRQ RUGHU XQGHU WKH
16$ RU &2)(326$ PXVW LQ DOO FDVHV
VXUUHQGHU EHIRUH KH FDQ ILOH D SHWLWLRQ

By the Court

1. The petitioner in this petition has
challenged the impugned detention order
dated
16.2.2001
passed
under
the
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,
1974.

2. Heard Sri A.D. Giri learned
Senior Advocate, for the petitioner and
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh for the Union of
India at length and perused the petition
and annexures thereto.

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents is granted three weeks time to
file
counter
affidavit. Connect with
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2040 of
2001, Ashwani Kumar Jain Vs. Union of
India and other and list immediately
thereafter.

4. Sri A.D. Giri has prayed that the
petitioner should not be arrested during
the pendency of this petition. On the other
hand learned counsel for the respondents
has relied upon a decision of the Supreme
Court in Additional Secretary to the
Government of India vs. Smt. Alka
Subhash Godia and another. 1992 Supp.
(1) SCC 496 and has submitted that
2All] Ravi Saran Prasad alias Kishore V. Smt. Rashmi Singh

142
unless the petitioner surrenders he cannot
challenge the impugned detention order.

5. In our opinion there cannot be any
absolute proposition in law that a person
challenging a detention order under the
N.S.A. or COFEPOSA must in all cases
surrender before he can file a petition. In
our country Article 21 of the Constitution
guarantees the right to life and liberty and
this is the most Important of all
fundamental
rights
provided
in
the
Constitution. Hence, individual liberty is
not to be lightly interfered with, and
hence, there cannot be any absolute
proposition that a detention order can
never
be
challenged
without
first
surrendering before the authorities. It all
depends on the facts of each case and no
absolute proposition can be laid down in
this connection.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents then submitted that a person
sought to be detained has no right to get a
copy of the grounds of detention before
his arrest and detention. Since we have
already observed that there cannot be any
absolute legal proposition that a detention
order can never be challenged without
first surrendering before the authorities, it
follows as a corollary that the ground for
detention
can
be
communicated
by
annexing the same in the counter affidavit
to be filed by the Government in such
cases. Since copy of the counter affidavit
will be served on the learned counsel for
the petitioner this itself will tantamount to
communication of the grounds to the
detenu because the learned counsel for the
petitioner can communicate these grounds
annexed to the counter affidavit, to the
petitioner.

7. On the facts and circumstances of
the case we direct that till the next date of
listing the petitioner shall not be arrested
in pursuance of the impugned detention
order dated 16.2.2001.

$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 0$5&+
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 0$5&+
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( 8
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -
6 75,3$7+, -

)LUVW $SSHDO 1R RI

5DYL 6DUDQ 3UDVDG DOLDV .LVKRUH
«'HIHQGDQW$SSHOODQW
9HUVXV
6PW 5DVPL 6LQJK
«3ODLQWLII5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQW
6KUL $QXSDP .XOVKUHVKWKD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW

)DPLO\
&RXUW
$FW6HFWLRQ

1R
DSSHDO LV PDLQWDLQDEOH DJDLQVW WKH RUGHU
DOORZLQJ WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ XV RI
+LQGX 0DUULDJH $FW
+HOG 3DUD
$ FRQMRLQW UHDGLQJ RI 6XEVHFWLRQ DQG
6XEVHFWLRQ PDNHV XV FU\VWDO FOHDU
WKDW RQO\ RQH DSSHDO OLHV WR WKH +LJK
FRXUW WKDW QR DSSHDO RU UHYLVLRQ OLHV
H[FHSW DV SURYLGHG XQGHU 6XEVHFWLRQ
IURP DQ\ MXGJHPHQW RUGHU RI GHFUHH RI D
)DPLO\ &RXUW DQG IXUWKHU WKDW QR DSSHDO
OLHV DJDLQVW VXFK MXGJHPHQW RU RUGHU
ZKLFK LV LQWHUORFXWRU\ ,W FDQQRW EH VDLG
WKDW
WKH
/HJLVODWXUH
KDV
FUHDWHG
DQ
DSSHOODWH
IRUP
LQ

DJDLQVW
WKH
RUGHUV SDVVHG XQGHU 6HFWLRQ RI WKH
+LQGX 0DUULDJH $FW QXOLI\LQJ 6HFWLRQ
RI WKDW $FW FRQWUDU\ WR WKH REMHFW RI
HQDFWPHQW RI WKH $FW DV VWDWHG LQ WKH %LOO