TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner filed W.P. (Crl) No.1707 of 2015 before the High Court of Delhi. When that Writ Petition came up for hearing on 18.8.2015, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to challenge the detention order at appropriate stage. Recording that statement, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 18.8.2015 passed by the Delhi High Court is extracted below: "Learned counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to challenge/ impugn the detention order at an appropriate stage. In view of the statement made, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn." 2. Thereafter, the present Writ Petition is filed before this Court sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Bhubaneswar till 5.4.2015. He again took casual leave for five days from 6.4.2015 to 10.4.2015. Again he went on half pay leave on medical ground from 4.5.2015 to 29.5.2015. From 13.7.2015 the petitioner went on leave for fifteen days and a further request for extension of leave on medical ground was made by him. 5. The present Writ Petition was filed before this Court on 18.9.2015. It is averred in the Writ Petition that he contacted his friends in Goa, who informed him that there was a publication in the Times of India newspaper dated 13.7.2015 wherein his name also appeared "in respect of some detention order". The petitioner also got a copy of the newspaper from his friend in Goa and he came to know that an order of detention was iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Writ Petition is not maintainable since the Delhi High Court did not grant to the petitioner permission to file another Writ Petition. The learned counsel also submitted that what was sought to be reserved while withdrawing the Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court was to challenge the order of detention at appropriate stage and that appropriate stage would arrive only on the detention of the petitioner. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which apart from stating the relevant facts in detail leading to the order of detention and the attempts made by the respondents to execute the order of detention, it is stated that the petitioner was absconding all through out to avoid execution of the order of detention. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appropriate stage. We proceed on the basis that the Delhi High Court had granted permission to the petitioner to challenge the order of detention at the appropriate stage. But we decline to entertain the Writ Petition on the ground that the "appropriate stage" contemplated by the petitioner and as seemingly understood by the Delhi High Court has not reached till now. 12. It is relevant to note that on 19.8.2015, the arguments in W.P.(Crl) No.1386 of 2015 (filed by Harpal Singh, another person involved in the incident) were over and the Delhi High Court reserved the case for judgment on that day. The petitioner had sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition filed by him before the Delhi High Court on 18.8.2015. It is not clear whether....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and the relevant files in the case, that the petitioner is making an attempt somehow or other to get an order from one High Court or the other and it is to accomplish such result he has now approached the High Court of Kerala. 14. The question whether the live-link between the prejudicial activity and the order of detention has been snapped is a matter to be considered while considering the validity of the detention order after its execution. Likewise, the question whether because of passage of time between the prejudicial activity and the order of detention and the passage of time after the date of order of detention till today, is also a matter to be considered on facts after the order of detention is executed. 15. In Subhash Popatlal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... theory is impermissible. Permitting such an argument would amount to enabling the law-breaker to take advantage of his own conduct which is contrary to law. 47. Even in those cases where action such as the one contemplated under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act is not initiated, the same may not be the only consideration for holding the order of preventive detention illegal. This Court in Shafiq Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Meerut [(1989) 4 SCC 556)], held so and the principle was followed subsequently in M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India and Anr. [(1990) 2 SCC 1], wherein this Court opined that in such cases, the surrounding circumstances must be examined. In both Shafiq Ahmad and Ahamedkutty's cases, these questions were examined afte....