TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court dismisses writ petition under Article 32 due to finality of decision.</h1> <h3>T.P. MOIDEEN KOYA Versus GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ORS.</h3> The Supreme Court held that the writ petition under Article 32 was not maintainable due to the finality of the decision in the Special Leave Petition. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.2. Application of the principle of res judicata to habeas corpus petitions.3. Validity of the detention order served while the petitioner was already in custody.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution:The preliminary objection raised by the Union of India questioned the maintainability of the petition under Article 32, arguing that the Supreme Court had already upheld the validity of the detention order in a previous Special Leave Petition. The petitioner's counsel contended that the violation of fundamental rights allows for a petition under Article 32, irrespective of technical considerations. The Supreme Court examined whether the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by this Court acts as a bar to the maintainability of the present petition under Article 32.2. Application of the Principle of Res Judicata to Habeas Corpus Petitions:The Court discussed the application of res judicata to petitions under Article 32, referencing several precedents. It was established that while res judicata applies to petitions under Article 32 following a dismissal under Article 226, it does not apply to habeas corpus petitions. The Court cited cases such as Daryao v. State of U.P. and Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India to highlight that habeas corpus petitions stand in a category by themselves and are not barred by res judicata. However, the Court noted that if a habeas corpus petition is dismissed by the High Court and the decision is affirmed by the Supreme Court, a subsequent petition under Article 32 on the same grounds would not be maintainable unless there are changed circumstances or new grounds.3. Validity of the Detention Order Served While the Petitioner was Already in Custody:The petitioner argued that the detention order was invalid as it was served while he was already in custody, without the detaining authority considering the necessity of detention. The Court examined precedents such as Binod Singh v. District Magistrate and Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, which establish that a detention order can be passed against a person in custody if the authority is aware of the custody and believes there is a real possibility of release and subsequent prejudicial activity. The Court found that the petitioner was not in custody when the detention order was passed and had absconded, making the order valid. The petitioner's subsequent surrender and remand did not invalidate the detention order, as there was still a possibility of his release.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that the present writ petition under Article 32 was not maintainable due to the principles discussed, particularly the finality of the decision rendered in the Special Leave Petition. Even on merits, the Court found no substance in the petitioner's arguments regarding the detention order's validity. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
