Petitioner sought an injunction against a preventive detention order he apprehended might be passed. The High Court held the petition was premature and dismissed it, relying on Manish S. Pardasani.
petition dismissed for being premature.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
WP(C).No.27165 OF 2020(U)
PETITIONER:
HAMJAD ALI, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. MOITHEENKUTTY, BABU NIVAS, KALOTH ONNAM MILE, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM-676 638
BY ADVS. SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN SRI.K.VIJAYAN (V 726)
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI – 110 001
2 THE JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 6TH FLOOR, B WING, JANPATH BHAVAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110001
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV) 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY, KOCHI-682 031
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.27165 OF 2020(U) 2
JUDGMENT
Ravikumar, J.
The petitioner, who is the seventh respondent in O.R. No.
7/2020 of Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate, Cochin filed this writ petition seeking the following relief:-
also the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents.
WP(C).No.27165 OF 2020(U) 3
detention is passed against him. Then, how the petitioner is justified in seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to execute the detention order ? There is nothing on record which would reveal that an order of preventive detention has been passed against the petitioner based on the registration of O.R. No. 7/2020. In the circumstances the question is whether such a writ petition moved, founded virtually only on an apprehension should be entertained ?
WP(C).No.27165 OF 2020(U) 4
order is actually passed, that will be available for challenge and a writ petition founded only on an apprehension shall not be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Certainly, this Court will not be justified in passing an order not to execute a detention order when the petitioner himself is not certain whether such an order has been passed against him.
In the said circumstances, we are of the view that this writ petition is premature. The petitioner could not have approached this Court merely based on an apprehension. The writ petition is therefore, liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL
JUDGE
DCS/08.12.2020
WP(C).No.27165 OF 2020(U) 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 06.07.2020 |
OCCURENCE REPORT DATED |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INVESTIGATION AGENCY, K |
FIR NO. 2/2020 OF NATIONAL OCHI DATED 10.07.2020 |
| EXHIBIT P3 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 14.07.2020 |
ARREST MEMO DATED |
| EXHIBIT P4 | A TRUE COPY OF THE PETI | TION DATED 25.08.2020 |
| EXHIBIT P5 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE | PETITION DATED 03.09.2020 |
| EXHIBIT P6 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE | PETITION DATED 08.09.2020 |
| EXHIBIT P7 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE 1782/2020 OF ADDITIONAL 17.09.2020 IS PRODUCED |
BAIL ORDER IN C.M.P. NO. CJM(EO), ERNAKULAM DATED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for habeas corpus or injunction against a hypothetical detention order can be entertained when no such order has been passed.
Whether this Court can pass an order not to execute a detention order when the petitioner is not certain whether such an order has been passed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manish S. Pardasani v. Inspector State ExciseReferred¶27
Manish S. Pardasani v. Inspector State Excise, [2019(2) SCC 660] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HAMJAD ALI
UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
THE JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV) KOCHI
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
K.HARIPAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
