Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

High Court of Manipur Sets Aside Detention Order Under NDPS Act -  “Unexplained Delay”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the High Court of Manipur, comprising HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA, has set aside a detention order issued under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act NDPS , 1988. The judgment, dated 07.07.2023, came in response to Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 57 of 2023 filed by Mr. Aribam Sidik Ali, who had been detained under the Act.

The key highlight of the judgment was the Court’s finding of an “unexplained delay” on the part of the Central Government in disposing of Mr. Ali’s representation against the detention order. The Court observed that the State Government had followed the necessary procedures within the stipulated time, but it took an additional 12 days for the Central Government to consider the representation, and this delay remained unexplained.

The Court’s ruling, citing precedent cases, emphasized the significance of prompt action in handling representations related to detention orders. It was held that unexplained delays in such matters render the detention order invalid.

In its judgment, the High Court noted: “The Central Government could not explain the delay of 12 (twelve) days’ time taken while disposing of the representation even after receiving para-wise comment. On this ground alone, the detention order cannot be sustained.”

The detention order issued on 09.12.2022 and the subsequent confirmation order dated 07.02.2023 were declared null and void, leading to the immediate release of Mr. Aribam Sidik Ali from custody.

Date of Decision: 07.07.2023

Aribam Sidik Ali vs The Commissioner

Latest Legal News