{"id":148801,"date":"2010-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010"},"modified":"2014-11-16T17:30:41","modified_gmt":"2014-11-16T12:00:41","slug":"munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Munuwar Hussain S\/O M. Farooque, vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Munuwar Hussain S\/O M. Farooque, vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Manjula Chellur V.Jagannathan<\/div>\n
1\nIN THE PIIGB COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE MT\" DAY OF' FEBRUARY '20_1_{__}\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRSJUSTECE MANJULA   \u00e9 '\n\nAND\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE4V,5LTAGANVN';%T\u00a7iAN'3':  ''\n\nWPHC NO.  2009  \nBETWEEN: '  1' \n\nSRLMUNUWAR HUSSAIN    \n\n3\/0 M;{3AE?..OC'QU'E.; '' . .\n\nR\/O ANJUM \"NAs;;11'-aaA1-:'V  _\n\nSHAMSUDDIN RQA.D,\u00bbT.NAv\u00a7AYAT\nC1C)LONY,ui?3'HA'I'KAL--.+--E~8-1__3:30  PETETEONER\n\n(BY SR1.1<1R'AN s;J.AvALI;"'ADV0cATE FOR\nSR.I;.\u00a7HA~NDRASE%E\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7RA $4., ADVOCATE)\n\n :."'T'<3ov'\u00a7RN_MT;EN'T OP' KARNATAKA\n\n' .__BY 981;. - $I33CRE'I'ARY\nHOME i1\u00a5EPAR'I'MEN'F\nV1'\u00a3)HE;NA SOUDHA\n\n .. VTLHBANVGALORE \u00abW 560 001\n\n' 'AA;3'.'*'Ai)DL. CHIEF SECRETARY AND\n\nPRL. SECi?E'l'A\u00a7i'Y TO GOVT.\nOF KARNATAKA,\n\nHOME DEPARTMENT\nVIDHANA SOUDHA\nBANGALORE -- 560 09}\n\nBY SRI.A.K.M.NAYAK\n\n\n\n2\n\n3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT\nCENTRAL PRISON\nBANGALORE  .RESPON[}EN'I'S\n\n(SRi.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL. ADV. GENERAL AND\nSRI.E.S.INDIRESH, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)\n\nThis WPHC filed under article 2226 '_ \n\nConstitution of indie praying to issue  of\n\nCorpus, direction declaring the H \ufb01oiorztion of\n\nSri.Mohammed imtiyaz Farooquemby' order No;jI~ID  V' ' \n\n2009 dated 4.6.2009 (Annex11;:'o--A]'A as *i__i1t'3ga1_ \nabinitio.     A' .. ~  \n\nThis petition comir1g_""~on for oz:dors"".._ t'i'1\u00e9~s day;y\n\nMANJULA CHELLUR 3., ma(ic:_ti1o following:\n\nTizo   case is the bmther of detenu\n\nSri.:?\u00a2'{o1}am'ii1o\u00a71  The 2116* respondent ~<\/pre>\n
. .  –  }’*.11tho1″i{\u00a7’j)\u00e91ssed order of detention in this case on<\/p>\n
   4 SCF’ 2009 and the same came to be<\/p>\n
oe\ufb01ed L’ cietonu on the very same day. Grounds of<\/p>\n
 dotexifioiu are at Annexure-B. Accorciing to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
 .t}:1oo””A_\u00aborcier of detontion is bad: in law as several factors<\/p>\n
‘pertaining to this order of cietzntion would indicate that the
\nsaid order is vitiated on the foliowing grounds:<\/p>\n
(i) Delay in considex\u00e9ng the representation of<\/p>\n
the \u00e9etenu on “:’.9.20(}9.\n<\/p>\n
f<\/p>\n
(ii) No application of mind by the
\nAuthority to the fact that then: xszyasj
\npropensity of engaging any  :”\n<\/p>\n
prejudicial activities once the A
\nthe detenu was seized.::.;   V ‘ _  u  V<\/p>\n
(iii) The Iepresentation   cT1e’tei1-av ..i”T~A
\nassistance of a :{w:;.:\u00a2r 1\u00a7\u00a2:’a\u00a3e
\nBoard was not eonsideieci.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Non\u00abap;31ic:;2tion of   \u00a7as’sh:’g the
\norder of detei1tjo11__    is not in<\/p>\n
conformity vzifii the   Act.\n<\/p>\n
Delay in  ‘ti_’x_:_.;v;_’_:1*e%:;:r\u00a3.Es\u00ab1A\u00e9::t’faf:;io;1 of the qetenu:<\/p>\n
  o:f:;;,%\u00a7_’YAN.\u00e9\u00ae\u00a7YAN SUKUL v. STATE 01:’<\/p>\n
WEST  ‘e_ENGAL_’*\u00a7ga.:e’–.._:Ti9fz0 so 67 a judgement by<\/p>\n
(3onss3TVtutio\u00a7iz21_:V}3,ei1c]A1′;. Vii: was held that the appropriate<\/p>\n
  auf\ufb01ority iszbouad””‘io’Vgive an opportunity to the detenu 1:0<\/p>\n
  make.  j>”1’e:s\u00a3:.}1tatio}:L and such repxesemzation has to be<\/p>\n
ee~1_\u00a7;s\u00abide;eeixe: the appropriate authority and the same is<\/p>\n
 indepeeideat of the opinion expressed by the Advisoxy 35303111.<\/p>\n
A f_” \u00a73i }:\ufb01i1ar1y, the appmp\ufb01ate authority ie. the Government has<\/p>\n
 tjo exercise or base its opinion and judgement on the<\/p>\n
Vvenepzesenta\ufb01on made by the cietenu before sending the case<\/p>\n
along with the detemfs Ieggresentation to the Advisory<\/p>\n
Board.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3. In the Case of KAMLESHKUMAR ISHWARDAS<\/p>\n
PATEL Versus UMON op’ IND\u00a3A AND OTHERS –\n<\/p>\n
(ca) 643 it was heid that in addition to his ri_jg1:t–5 _<\/p>\n
repxveserztation to State Govemment or Centa::J.j’GoVej::1;me\u00a7it,*\u00ab.. <\/p>\n
he has a right under Article 22(5) of..tt:e<\/p>\n
said Ifigltt has to be informed to t\u00a7*3_e”‘:iete1*:1’1’u\u00a7-   <\/p>\n
information of such valuable  can  detention
\norder. Thezefole, the  paste. the older of
\ndetention has the power   .Qf1;ier. Hence, the<\/p>\n
consideration   the detenu by the<\/p>\n
said  as possible is of utmost
\nimpor1:a’d1z.oe.\u00bb  is iethargic disposal of such
\npep3rese1.1tatto11,A  tlte concerned authority, the order of<\/p>\n
 ”  t\u00e9votxld detitlitely vitiatr: the prooeedizlgs.
\n‘  _   case of PABITRA N RANA Versus UMON OF<\/p>\n
Mora 2_tNi:$__C}THERS ~ 1980 sec: (o;~i.)450 even 1? days of
\nunexptagined delay in considering the I’C}}I’\u20acSCI1tatiO11 by
\n” AAVzadf[:”prop1iate Government, the Apex Court held that the same<\/p>\n
V’wot11d vitiate the detention order resulting in the detention<\/p>\n
.   . .  A  “order being void.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5. G21 perusal of the records, it is noticed tftat the<\/p>\n
older of detention of the Detaining Authority was.<\/p>\n
4.6.2009. A repxesentation was given by   V’ <\/p>\n
23.7.2099, one to the Advisory”AABda.\u00abd’-<.a_u;c;.A\u00a7;1\u00a2  rim '<\/p>\n
Detaining Authority. The A. to .'v_–v_,<.;ive 2 u<\/p>\n
representations by the detelimjttisb based. on  <\/p>\n
also Articie 19 of  ttze  of"'=Ind}ia. The
\necmsidera\ufb01on of   \ufb02ze appropriate
\nG0vemment'o17:t\u00a71e   '\u00a7.svV'V\u00a7'tz'1depen<i.ent of the
\nopinion of  the appropriate
\n __ Consider his Iepresentation
\nindepetridentlyt  light of the opinion of the<\/p>\n
Actjvisoty Boa.rt1."'in thettpresent case, the \u00e9etention order is<\/p>\n
 .;iat\u00e9q:,,,';;_5';2Q09 \u00e9fgkitthis Ifepzesentation is dated 23.7.2009.<\/p>\n
  g'ITbVe considered the representation made<\/p>\n
to}: on '$009 and the Advisory Board gave its opinion on<\/p>\n
  confum\u00e9ng the detention of the detenu. In the<\/p>\n
 '.\u00a71\u00a7\u00a73ent case, it is seen. that date of representation to Home<\/p>\n
Department is 24.7.2009 and the \u00e9ate of rejection of the<\/p>\n
representation is 7.9.2009. The grounds of detention was
\nserved on the detenu on 8.5.2009. The Advisoxy \u00a53oard's<\/p>\n
opinion dated 14.8.2009 was eommunieated to the etietenu<\/p>\n
6<\/span>
\nby the Detaining Authority on 29.8.2009. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
confirmatory order came to be passed on 29.8.200u9.’,_tiy..the<\/p>\n
13′ respondent. So far as consideration of the <\/p>\n
made to the 13\u00a2 pespondent — appropriate   teat:  <\/p>\n
rejected on 7.9.2009 after a}}owi1jtg deiajf  <\/p>\n
from the date of receipt of paxawiee corn13\u00ab1en’tS’ 133\/’\u00ab”‘tlie*<\/p>\n
sponsoring authority. The vefyitptiaet t11at.oi2A  itseiftt<\/p>\n
a eon\ufb01rmation order.of.\ufb01eten’tion…’yvaS-qzuadet fo1*”a period of
\none year from 8.6.200?-gt’  vgra\u00e9 ‘qieasoza. Why the<\/p>\n
appropxiate  v”?}9v.2009 to reject the<\/p>\n
1epre:\u00a7ent:e\ufb01o\u00a7i.”Vgf_:the”dete_nu.. f Therefore, the action or the
\npmcetinze   Home Department :\u00a3.e. 1*’<\/p>\n
I’f’:$::f)’C)’Ilt;i\u20acI}t’V  Jtliits ease would indicate that for about 38<\/p>\n
   ngepxeeetntation was just lying with the 1″<\/p>\n
 1*e$ponC2en’t fanthority and there is no coordination or co\u00bb<\/p>\n
IA’elatioz1~_vt}?;ettveen the con\ufb01rmation order and the<\/p>\n
 eonsigietation of the representation. Therefore, there is an<\/p>\n
 vjtgggjgdizxate delay in considering the representation of the<\/p>\n
Hkletenzx and mechanically passing rejection order on 7.9.200?<\/p>\n
would only indicate there is no application of mind at all.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the order of detention is vitiateti.<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
Hon application of mind by the detaining .–<\/p>\n
 tv of comgittigg similtgfr   <\/p>\n
activities:\n<\/p>\n
6. So far as this ground 0f eon :;\u00a7.;o};$1;c\u00e9:tj\u00a7:k.<\/p>\n
the fact about the absence Vof_VLi1’Ein;)pe:(A1.\u00e9’.ity 0.1;:  ‘bf the V L’<\/p>\n
detenu to repeat the a}iegedVAe-activities as \u20ache..Apas\u00a7sport was<\/p>\n
seized, the learned couiisel-fcir   mlies 01:1:<\/p>\n
1. 2002    GULATI Versus\n e:\u00a7L;-ii AND ANOTHER;\n\n<\/pre>\n
2. ;’,:f}H(\u00a7?V3H13A;”T.V’V:MUKESH 8!; 0923. Versus
\nei3\\fERN as 0123.; and<\/p>\n
3.  _CrI.V’ .’Fxvp\u00a75t3aLilV\/12009 (arising out of S.L.P. (Cr1.)<\/p>\n
V’ ;’N;\u00a7.1,:6201\/2i}09}——-‘GIMlK PIOTR Versus STATE 01? TAMIL<\/p>\n
* ” ‘V V   GRS.\n<\/p>\n
  7.  gist of the above cases is detention law must be<\/p>\n
 fellowed both substantively as Well as procedurally<\/p>\n
”  ‘because the object of such law is not to punish but to<\/p>\n
 \ufb01fevent certam crimes. H” the appropriate detain” 113’ g<\/p>\n
‘ authexity is satisfied that with 3. View 1:9 prevent such person<\/p>\n
\ufb01em carrying can any of the o\ufb01ensive activities enumerated
\ntherein, it is neeese-my to detain such person. The<\/p>\n
sa\ufb01sfaetiou of the detaining autherity is not a s11bject:ive one<\/p>\n
9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
9. According to the petitioner, when once the passpert<\/p>\n
of the detenu was seized, the detaining authority o11.ght to<\/p>\n
have considered the fact that there was “Ito<\/p>\n
possibility of repetition :31” such act by the detergt\ufb01.  <\/p>\n
the application of mind by the, \u00bbauthoIi’t3.dVi1s’: Vt<\/p>\n
without considezing the possib:i1i1:y1’_’_’0:f’tV xepetittbztt ..VV:A{::..\u00a7.’;l:e<\/p>\n
activities inspite of seizure 0f:the.. of
\nAssistance of g  V\u00bb A t V\n<\/p>\n
10. So far as  to ‘d-secsiiiie\u00e9ssiet\ufb01\u00e9traee of an advocate,
\nas already stated in Q.’\u00a33.1e\u00bbt’.   Advisory Board<\/p>\n
for  SmtetGo’erei’1:~3;(ie.dt~–if3 -net rejecting the representation
\nseeking’ 3S’SiSt3i1~C\u20ac.}” of lawyer alone is denied by<\/p>\n
the ‘Ad.visoty’*  V” As a matter of fact, anyone Could<\/p>\n
 :vV\ufb01,1_e detenu i.e. kith and kin or a close friend.<\/p>\n
 T\u00a71\u20acI’;\u20acf\u00a5I’)\u00a7’\u00a7v,n  not a case where there is denial of fair<\/p>\n
epportuxzitgk’ 5:” \u00a7:>eing heard through the next friend of the<\/p>\n
 Ad\u20ac\u00a5\ufb01I..1’L1;: Therefore, said contention of the petitiionefs<\/p>\n
  ‘eQd:1se} that :re3’eetion or non–coz1side;~ati013 of the request ta<\/p>\n
U __5give assistance of a lawyer vitiates the detexztion order is<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
Variance of the words user} in the detention. _or.de;f:<\/p>\n
11. The next ground urged was ”\n<\/p>\n
detention was not in confoninity  the x-\u00a2o’rd:\u00a7: 355:1  me’  <\/p>\n
Act. The learned Counsel relies or; the-foiio\u00e9wirigdoiiotionsiee<\/p>\n
2. AIR 1966 so 740,\u00bb;.:2AM”‘MA’;~zoHA1\u00a7* \\}*\/s,._:f<\/p>\n
STATE or BIHAR AoV”A:\u00a7_c;T\u00a7\u00a3Ei\u00e9;—   V
\n:2. 1922 so 1759-%._~  Vv\/s.H$S’i’A'”\u00a3’E or
\nWEST BENoAIVg;_”‘A._VV     d\n<\/p>\n
3. A1R3~1<;;92f31'sc  ;\u00a7'v~AKSd\ufb01o3<  V] 3. STATE or
\n R. -'PRAKASH W 3. STATE or
\n'' VV._1}\u00a7ARNArA''1kA.:\\'':\n<\/p>\n
d “12.   ofdthe above cases is that if the order of<\/p>\n
  ie’*.1:;ot in Conformity with the words in the Act, it<\/p>\n
  demotion order. Strict compliance with the letter<\/p>\n
of ‘*.*.}_:_1e 1juie.ii’%3 {he essence of the maiter. If the words used in<\/p>\n
 the o”n1_.\u00bb;\u00a7:~ of detention results in variance between the<\/p>\n
V.”VV.AAacti\\fz”ities complained of and the words used in the order of<\/p>\n
K  detention, it would not be in co1:1:fo:m1ity with the provision or<\/p>\n
the clause under which the detention order was made. The
\nwords used in the order of detention should indicate that the<\/p>\n
authority passing the order was sure in his mind about the<\/p>\n
11<\/span>
\npmeise grounds for detaining the detemz. and he should not<\/p>\n
mechanicaily or loosely use the words of the section. The
\norder of detention must speak out the necessary words Why
\nsuch order was made and it should not give scope_4wi:ong<\/p>\n
interpretation.\n<\/p>\n
13. 01:}. perusal of the orderfof det:e_ntAion,’ <\/p>\n
in the present case the order ofiA:’de’ee_ntioni’2t i%1Lr1e:::t13:\u00a7;Lf\u00a3_<\/p>\n
reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
_ “osoeR.’,<\/p>\n
 Ia,  Additional Chief
\nif-Eeoretaiyii ‘to:e\u00ab.iGot?ernment, Home Eepartxsent,
\nGo\ufb01em\ufb01ent  E{.si_fnstaka speeiaiiy empowered
\n“‘1inde1.; .’:,~’1eV(_f:”ii’\u00bb(1)’V’oi”. the Conservation of Foreign<\/p>\n
V  ii\u00e9ixciiange anti”Pievent:ion of Smuggiing Activities<\/p>\n
  \u00bb5ct,’_~_is’~74 (Central Act 52 of 1974) am satis\ufb01ed<\/p>\n
.  a View to preventing Shri Mohammed
\n Farooque from acting in any manner<\/p>\n
~~ from smuggling of Indian currency notes, it is<\/p>\n
it ‘  neoessaiy to make the foliowing order.<\/p>\n
2. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
\nConferzed by Section 3(1) and Section 3(})(i) of
\nthe Conversation of Foreign Exchange and
\nPrevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
\n(Centrai Act 52 of 19374), I hereby direct that<\/p>\n
said Shri Mohammad Emtiyaz Farooqne be<\/p>\n
12<\/span>
\ndetained and kept in custody in Central Prison,<\/p>\n
Bangalore, on the grounds annexed herewith”<\/p>\n
14. Section 3(1) has two parts, first part <\/p>\n
conservation of augmentation of foreign exchaiitgev   ”<\/p>\n
second one is pzevention of smnggii11g._ The Woids deed. <\/p>\n
the order of detentiojz would izidicaite fiie” <\/p>\n
Section with regard to conseiivaiion of’foreig11i excli;-3:o.ge*’iwas * i<\/p>\n
applied to the second portion of ‘Sectioop  to. In
\nother words, the   did not even<\/p>\n
understand that SectiotiV3{.].):’co11te:3iiiate\u00a7 ipiievention of two<\/p>\n
acts, one ‘– iazcit which is prejudicial to the
\nconservatioii ia:1dii’a1iigu1eti_t:1tion of foreign exchange and the<\/p>\n
second one waS”to\u00ab yrevent a person from smuggiing, etc. In<\/p>\n
,the, yrevseiitcase, the pet\u00e9tioaefs case was that this detenu<\/p>\n
 Indian currency. T}Z1\u20acI’\u20acf0I’\u20ac, it has to<\/p>\n
be 2111  of detention, preventing him from smuggiing<\/p>\n
 Jiindian ii(:1.I.I’i’6I1\u00a3{3}’ and it cannot be an order preventing him<\/p>\n
  acting in any manner from smuggling of Indian<\/p>\n
M   …_<:i11'rency. Therefore, notvunderstanding of the provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 3(1) or quoting wrong words leading to wrong
\nmeaning by the Detaining Authority wouid only indicate non.-<\/p>\n
application of mind while passing the detention 0I'd\u20ac:1".<\/p>\n
\\\\f\\<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
Under these circumstances, in the present case, the order of<\/p>\n
detention gets vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
15. Then coming to the pmeedural aspect)<\/p>\n
regard to the seriousness of the crime
\niiberty of the detenu W331 be at stake’ w.hen’_’enee’e exfier bf V’
\ndetention is made. Therefme,  A’ dete13.tiei1<\/p>\n
e<3I;cer_{1ing the iiberty of a  is "made, "to be- V<\/p>\n
strict eomgliaglee of the pr0eedut}\u00a7:.witt1 prepervelpp\u00e9iea\ufb01on of
\nmind to arrive at  j  eenelusion by the<\/p>\n
Detaining Authority.  Stage\u00e9 K\u00e91_re.'V'e:feated in or\u00e9er to<\/p>\n
give eppQItti Iti't5,*–\u00abv._tbV.the V'd.e_ten.u to make representation to
\ndiifere\ufb01t the authority which passes<\/p>\n
detention  "Ft1erefo1\u20ac'e, having reganl to the fact that the<\/p>\n
   to give representation to the State<\/p>\n
   Government, Detainixzg Authority,<\/p>\n
 Government, Advisory Board, it would only<\/p>\n
 Ineaii vt\ufb01at each. one has to act independerltly of the other
\n  the appropriate Government has to consider the<\/p>\n
iepresentation independently prier to the opinian of the<\/p>\n
Advisory Boani and also subsequent to the opinion of the
\nAdvisory Board in the tight of the opinien of the Advisory<\/p>\n
Board. A11 these precautions are indicated having regaml to<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
the fact that the liberty of a person is at stakes. T’1%ie=:;\u00e9f\u00ab:\u00a7i*eu,<\/p>\n
the procedure has to be complied strictly and    ‘<\/p>\n
mechanical Way of dealing with  or’ ‘d<\/p>\n
consideration sf representation <\/p>\n
would result in making the ord.ei*~.Qf defenses   <\/p>\n
16. Therefore, in  ._fpr tI\u00ablie”re\u00e9isons and<\/p>\n
discussions mentioned ‘aV1’s’t:A)’ve’,’v   ‘Qf detention in<\/p>\n
Nc:.HD 4 sea  V’ The said<\/p>\n
order of    void and the deteml
\nsri.Mohammeq~’1ms3\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7;;;:\u00a7’\u00e9;\u00a7\u00a2oqu’e’.V;:\u00a2s\u00a7’wesV:6 be set at liberty
\nforthwith. Theief\u00e9fe,’   Corpus is issued
\ndeclaring the dete\ufb01tiezi.   Imtiyaz Farooque<\/p>\n
as iiiegal void.\n<\/p>\n
 petition is aliiowed.\n<\/p>\n
  Acc\u20ac)mdiI1g];;.,’   office is directed to intimate the<\/p>\n
‘ ‘e%.$r1cei’ned authoflty to release the detenu forthwith.<\/p>\n
RV<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Munuwar Hussain S\/O M. Farooque, vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010 Author: Manjula Chellur V.Jagannathan 1 IN THE PIIGB COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE MT” DAY OF’ FEBRUARY ’20_1_{__} PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRSJUSTECE MANJULA \u00e9 ‘ AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE4V,5LTAGANVN’;%T\u00a7iAN’3′: ” WPHC NO. 2009 BETWEEN: ‘ 1’ SRLMUNUWAR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-148801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMunuwar Hussain S\/O M. Farooque, vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Munuwar Hussain S\/O M. Farooque, vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-16T12:00:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Munuwar Hussain S\\\/O M. Farooque, vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-16T12:00:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2133,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Munuwar Hussain S\\\/O M. Farooque, vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-16T12:00:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Munuwar Hussain S\\\/O M. Farooque, vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Munuwar Hussain S\/O M. Farooque, vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Munuwar Hussain S\/O M. Farooque, vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-16T12:00:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Munuwar Hussain S\/O M. Farooque, vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-16T12:00:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010"},"wordCount":2133,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010","name":"Munuwar Hussain S\/O M. Farooque, vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-16T12:00:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munuwar-hussain-so-m-farooque-vs-government-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Munuwar Hussain S\/O M. Farooque, vs Government Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148801","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=148801"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148801\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}