Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jun 24, 2003

About Us
Contact Us
National
News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

National Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

T.N. Govt. directed not to arrest lawyer

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI June 23. The Supreme Court today directed the Tamil Nadu Government not to arrest an advocate and accredited overseas recruitment agent, against whom a detention order was passed under COFEPOSA in February 2001 but not executed, till the Government disposes of his four representations.

A vacation bench, comprising Justice R.C. Lahoti and Justice Brijesh Kumar, passed the order.

Petitioner, S. Mohammad Ali, contended that the alleged prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention had been snapped in view of the delay in executing the order of detention.

Further, the State Government while disposing of one of the five representations sent by the petitioner had not explained the delay in executing the order.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the High Court direction not to consider four of the five petitions, on the ground that the authorities had administrative work, was contrary to the judgment of a Constitution bench of the apex court.

The bench observed that so long as the first representation was not disposed of, the petitioner was entitled to send more representations and set aside the High Court order.

The bench asked the State not to arrest the petitioner till the four representations were disposed of.

It also granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition filed by him against the State Government's order rejecting the first representation, with liberty to move the High Court against that order.

By an order dated January 30, the Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu Government to consider only the first representation.

In the special leave petition against this order, the petitioner contended that the four representations were in the nature of applications for revocation under Sec. 11 of the COFEPOSA and the authorities were bound to consider all the five representations.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu