Allowed

Abdulla v. the Superintendent of Police, Cannanore

Kerala HC26 Nov 2012WP(C)/20679/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner complained that local police threatened to detain him based on 1985 Maharashtra detention orders. The court directed the local police not to execute these orders or make arrests until receiving further communication or clarification from the Maharashtra Government authorities issuing the orders.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents 1 to 3 not to execute Exts.P1 and P2 against the petitioner till they receive further communication from respondents 4 and 5.

Abdulla Vs the Superintendent of Police, Cannanore — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶5

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/5TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶6

WP(C).No. 20679 of 2012 (H)

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

ABDULLA, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. MAYAN ALI, THACHARAKKAL CANNOTH HAJI BUNGLOW, CHATTAM COON ROAD, TELLICHERRY CANNANORE, KERALA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CANNANORE CANNANORE DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 670 001.

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TELLICHERRY POLICE STATION, TELLICHERRY, CANNANORE, PIN CODE: 670571.

¶13

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TELLICHERRY CIRCLE, CANNANORE DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 670 571.

¶14

4. THE DESK OFFICER, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, HOME DEPARTMENT (SPECIAL), MANTRALAYA MUMBAI, PIN CODE: 400 032.

¶15

ADDL.5. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASTRA HOME DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI - 400032.

¶16

ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS PER ORDER DATED 06/09/2012.

¶17

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RIJU ABRAHAM

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

BKA

¶20

WP(C).No. 20679 of 2012 (H)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.1985 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2	COPY OF ANOTHER ORDER DATED 26.11.1985 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 06.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE UNIT, TELLICHERRY.

¶24

RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

BKA

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &

¶29

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶30

WP(C) No. 20679 OF 2012

¶31

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2012

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶34

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, who was issued with Exts.P1 and P2 orders of detention by the Government of Maharashtra way back in 1985, complaining that respondents 1 to 3 Police Officers, who are in Kannur district, are threatening to detain him on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2.

¶35

According to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent is the Desk Officer, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra. We, on considering this writ petition for admission, impleaded the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in its Home Department as additional 5^th respondent. Even though notice of this writ petition was served on the 4^th respondent and the additional 5^th respondent, they have not chosen to enter appearance before this Court. Thus, all the averments and allegations in the writ petition pertaining to the

¶36

..2..

¶37

WP(C) No. 20679 OF 2012

¶38

executability/implementation of Exts.P1 and P2 stands established by non-traverse by the concerned respondents. We are of the view that the petitioner is justified in seeking relief no.(b), which is as follows:

¶39

“(b) issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to execute Ext.P1 order until they receive any further communication from 4^th respondent to execute the same.”

¶40

Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition directing respondents 1 to 3 not to execute Exts.P1 and P2 against the petitioner till they receive further communication from respondents 4 and 5 in the above connection. It is open to respondents 1 to 3 to address respondents 4 and 5 and seek clarifications. Arrest, if at all, should be made only on the basis of clarification received from respondents 4 and 5.

¶41

The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶44

Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶45

bka/-

Abdulla v. the Superintendent of Police, Cannanore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdulla v. the Superintendent of Police, Cannanore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mary Shali @ Prashali Vs Reginold Russel

Maimoonathal Misiriya Vs a.P.Muhammed Ashraf

Vanajakumari K.K. Vs Nil

Lijo Thomas Vs the Superintendent of Police

Jayathra Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

K.Prabhakaran Nair Vs Sub Inspector of Police