Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 460 (JK)

Aijaz Ahmad Handoo v. State & Ors.

2012-07-27

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
1. Petitioner is not present in the Court. By the medium of this writ petition, he has called in question the detention order bearing No. DMS/PSA/48/2010 dated 09.02.2011 passed by the District Magistrate - Respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. The order has not yet been executed. Petitioner has, therefore, further sought a direction against the respondents not to execute the same. 2. Respondents have filed the counter and contested the writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The order of detention has been passed on 09.02.2011 and the writ petition came to be filed on 19.04.2011. It is contended that the petitioner is earning his livelihood by working as a salesman on a readymade garment shop. He was apprehended on 22.01.2011 from his residence and booked in case FIR No. 44/2011 in P/S Rainawari. He was admitted to bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 08.01.2011, but, instead of releasing him, he was booked in FIR No. 54/2010 P/S Nowhatta. Again, he was admitted to bail by the competent Court of jurisdiction on 15.01.2011 in this FIR as well. However, he was not released and came to bebooked in case FIR No. 159/2010 P/S Safakadal. In this FIR also, he was admitted to bail on 28.01.2011. It is averred that, after being cleared from all the security agencies, and having been admitted to bail in all the FIRs, he was released from the custody. It is alleged that, thereafter, the impugned order, directing detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 came to be passed on 09.02.2011. 4. A plain reading of the grounds of detention reveals that on the basis of activities as contained in the grounds of detention, the petitioner was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. 5. It is beaten law of the land that in pre-execution petition the grounds of challenge are very limited to the subject and the grounds which are available to the detenue after execution are not available to him before its execution. The apex Court in case titled Union of India and ors v. Atam Parkash and Anr. 5. It is beaten law of the land that in pre-execution petition the grounds of challenge are very limited to the subject and the grounds which are available to the detenue after execution are not available to him before its execution. The apex Court in case titled Union of India and ors v. Atam Parkash and Anr. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 585 has held that the Courts under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India can interfere at the pre-execution stage in the following circumstances only: (i) the impugned order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed: (ii) it is sought to be executed against a wrong person: (iii) it is passed for a wrong purpose: (iv) it is passed on vague, extraneous and vexatious grounds: or (v) the authority which passed it had not authority to do so. 6. While applying the principles as laid down by the apex Court to the case on hand, the case of the petitioner does not fall within the parameters of the judgement aforementioned. 7. In the aforementioned background, I find no merit in the writ petition on hand. Dismissed along with Cr. M.P. Interim direction shall stand vacated.