TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner, as the detenu's brother and a person whose proprietary interests could be affected by proceedings under the forfeiture law, had locus standi to challenge the detention order under Article 226. (ii) Whether the detention order was invalid because it was made despite the detenu having time to return to India under a court order and because preventive detention cannot be used to bar a person from entering India.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner, as the detenu's brother and a person whose proprietary interests could be affected by proceedings under the forfeiture law, had locus standi to challenge the detention order under Article 226.
Analysis: The existence of a proclamation under the detention law exposed the petitioner to possible action under the forfeiture statute, since that statute could extend to relatives of a detained person. The petitioner's pecuniary and proprietary interests were therefore directly endangered by the continued existence of the detention order. In that situation, the petitioner had sufficient interest to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Conclusion: The petitioner had locus standi to maintain the petition.
Issue (ii): Whether the detention order was invalid because it was made despite the detenu having time to return to India under a court order and because preventive detention cannot be used to bar a person from entering India.
Analysis: The detaining authority failed to take account of the court's earlier order granting time to return to India. The detenu was also not being allowed to enter India because of visa refusal, and the preventive detention power was not meant to prevent a person from coming into the country; it was meant to prevent prejudicial activities. On those facts, there was no rational basis for making the detention order on that date.
Conclusion: The detention order was invalid and liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the detention order was quashed, and the petitioner obtained relief against preventive detention proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order cannot be sustained where the detaining authority ignores a relevant court order permitting return and where the order is made for an impermissible purpose inconsistent with the object of preventive detention.
TaxTMI 
