Amendment granted to challenge notification under COFEPOSA Act, highlighting personal liberty

The court allowed the petitioner's application to amend the writ petition, enabling the challenge of the notification under Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act alongside the detention order. Emphasizing personal liberty and the necessity of judicial review in preventive detention cases, the court set the matter for final hearing before the Roster Bench.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition at the pre-execution stage.
2. Legality of the detention order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act.
3. Validity of the notification under Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act.
4. Amendment of the writ petition to include additional grounds and reliefs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition at the pre-execution stage:
The respondents argued that the writ petition challenging the detention order at the pre-execution stage is not maintainable, citing Supreme Court precedents such as Additional Secretary to the Govt. of India and Ors. Vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Subhash Popat Lal Dave v Union of India. The court noted that while the Supreme Court has restricted interference at the pre-execution stage to exceptional cases, the petitioner's case involved issues of personal liberty, which warranted judicial scrutiny. The court emphasized that the petitioner's personal liberty cannot be compromised and that the interim protection granted could be varied after hearing the respondents.

2. Legality of the detention order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act:
The petitioner challenged the detention order issued on 21.01.2020, arguing that it was issued with malice and based on vague and extraneous grounds. The court noted that the petitioner had been granted bail previously and had complied with conditions, including permission to travel abroad. The court found that the petitioner's conduct did not warrant the issuance of a detention order and that the respondents needed to justify the delay in executing the order.

3. Validity of the notification under Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act:
The petitioner sought to challenge the notification issued on 17.03.2020, which directed him to appear before the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner argued that the notification was issued with malice and without promptitude, as required under Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act. The respondents contended that the notification was a separate cause of action and should be challenged independently. The court found that the notification was interlinked with the detention order and that the petitioner should be allowed to challenge it within the same petition to avoid procedural complications.

4. Amendment of the writ petition to include additional grounds and reliefs:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to amend the writ petition and include a challenge to the notification under Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that it was filed belatedly and would delay the proceedings. The court allowed the amendment, noting that the challenge to the notification was not entirely alien to the subject matter of the petition and had a direct nexus with the detention order. The court directed the petitioner to file the amended writ petition within three days and set a timeline for the respondents to file their reply and the petitioner to file a rejoinder.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petitioner's application to amend the writ petition, enabling him to challenge the notification under Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act along with the detention order. The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the need for judicial scrutiny in cases involving preventive detention. The matter was listed for final hearing before the Roster Bench.

---