Petitioner sought to quash his 1971 Act detention order decades later. The court held habeas corpus is unavailable as he was not detained. Outright dismissal precluded adjudicating distant grievances or compensation claims, directing those via civil courts. Petition dismissed.
Petition dismissed. No compensation awarded in this proceeding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 896 OF 2008
Purshottam Vasudeo Gore. ..... ..... Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Ors. ..... ....... Respondents.
Mr. D. V. Sutar for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and A. A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED : 7TH JULY, 2008.
P.C.:
The grievance of the petitioner is that under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, he was detained by an order dated 30th December, 1975 for the period from 21st December, 1975 to 21st March, 1977. He wants this order to be quashed. The writ of habeas corpus would not lie if the petitioner is not in detention. Since, admittedly the petitioner is not in detention as on today, in our view, the order of detention cannot be quashed.
2
after 33 years. If the petitioner wants any compensation, as he prayed in one of the prayers, he may approach appropriate civil Court.
Sd/-
(BILAL NAZKI, J.)
Sd/-
(A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an order of detention can be quashed via habeas corpus when the petitioner is not in detention.
Whether this court can adjudicate grievances against an order of detention made 33 years ago.
Whether compensation is maintainable in this writ proceeding.
Purshottam Vasudeo Gore
Union of India
Bilal Nazki
A. A. Kumbhakoni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
