TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order of detention is issued cannot be the basis for challenging the order of detention at its pre-execution stage. We reject the contention raised by the petitioner. - Decided against the petitioner. - WP(Crl.).No. 400 of 2015 (S) - - - Dated:- 20-10-2015 - MR.K.T.SANKARAN AND MR. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI.NIRMAL. S SMT.VEENA HARI FOR THE RESPONDENT : SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL JUDGMENT K.T.Sankaran, J. An order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act') was issued against the petitioner. Before it could be executed, the petitioner filed W.P. (Crl) No.1707 of 2015 before the High Court of Delhi. When that Writ Petition came up for hearing on 18.8.2015, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to challenge the detention order at appropriate stage. Recording that statement, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 18.8.2015 passed by the Delhi High Court is extracted below: Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of some detention order . The petitioner also got a copy of the newspaper from his friend in Goa and he came to know that an order of detention was issued against him. The petitioner immediately went to Delhi along with his counsel in Kerala and obtained copy of the order of detention and the grounds of detention served on Imthiaz Hussain, who was one of the passengers and who was intercepted at Dabolim Airport on 7.7.2014. The petitioner stated that he went through the grounds of detention which contained the probable grounds of detention in so far as it relates to the petitioner as well. 6. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of detention at its pre-execution stage, after having withdrawn the Writ Petition filed by him before the Delhi High Court for the same relief. 7. Sri.Nirmal S., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that there is lack of live nexus between the prejudicial activity and the order of detention. Since the petitioner was transferred from Goa to Bhubaneswar, there is no possibility of the petitioner indulging in any prejudicial activity. The change of circumstances have snapped the live-link between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me that the permission sought for by the petitioner was granted by the Delhi High Court, though not specifically stated in the operative portion of the order. We are not disposing of the Writ Petition on the ground that the Delhi High Court did not grant permission to the petitioner to challenge the order of detention at the appropriate stage. We proceed on the basis that the Delhi High Court had granted permission to the petitioner to challenge the order of detention at the appropriate stage. But we decline to entertain the Writ Petition on the ground that the appropriate stage contemplated by the petitioner and as seemingly understood by the Delhi High Court has not reached till now. 12. It is relevant to note that on 19.8.2015, the arguments in W.P.(Crl) No.1386 of 2015 (filed by Harpal Singh, another person involved in the incident) were over and the Delhi High Court reserved the case for judgment on that day. The petitioner had sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition filed by him before the Delhi High Court on 18.8.2015. It is not clear whether W.P.(Crl) No.1386 of 2015 also came up for hearing on 18.8.2015 before the Delhi High Court and therefore, it is also not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (opinion) of the State that it is necessary to preventively detain a person is definitely fatal to the preventive detention order. All those cases where the Courts have quashed the orders of preventive detention on the theory of lack of 'live nexus' are cases where the detention orders were executed but not cases of nonexecution of the detention orders for a long lapse of time after such orders came to be passed. ...... ....... ....... 43. If a preventive detention order is to be quashed or declared illegal merely on the ground that the order remained unexecuted for a long period without examining the reasons for such non-execution, I am afraid that the legislative intention contained in the provisions such as Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act would be rendered wholly nugatory. ...... ....... ........ ....... 46. Therefore, I am of the opinion that those who have evaded the process of law shall not be heard by this Court to say that their fundamental rights are in jeopardy. At least, in all those cases, where proceedings such as the one contemplated under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act were initiated consequent upon absconding of the proposed detenu, the challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
