IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1009 of 2008(T)
1. K.KUNHABDULLA, S/O IBRAHIM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, REPRESENTED BY
3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :21/08/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P(C).No.1009 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
In the year 1991, an order under Section 3(1)(i) of the
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act 1974, was issued by the 2nd respondent for detention of
the petitioner. Pursuant to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, a
warrant of arrest was issued by the 1st respondent. That arrest warrant
could not be executed, apparently, since the petitioner evaded arrest.
The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent has now passed a
general order directing withdrawal of all orders passed under the
Preventive Detention Laws, which remain unexecuted for the last 15
years. But, since the 2nd respondent did not communicate the same
to the 1st respondent, the warrant still holds good. It is under the
above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking
the following reliefs:
“i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
direction commanding the respondent No.3 or any other officer
acting under his directions not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance
to by the Order No.701/SSA-4/95 issued by the 1st respondent.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
direction commanding the 2nd respondent to inform the 1st
respondent whether the petitioner’s arrest or detention is required
under law.
iii) Any other reliefs which may be prayed for from time to time.”
2
2. I have heard the parties.
3. The petitioner is a fugitive from justice. If any order has
been passed by the 2nd respondent as stated by the petitioner, that is
purely a internal matter, which would not give raise to any right on the
petitioner, who is a violator of law. Having evaded arrest for the last
15 years, he cannot simply come and ask the Court to direct the 2nd
respondent to issue direction to withdraw the warrant of arrest. He
has no such right also. I am not, therefore, inclined to exercise my
discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, who is a fugitive
from justice. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge