MAQBOOL PASHA HUSSENI BAIG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case has sought for the relief to declare his detention which was made during the year 1997 as illegal and unconstitutional as the same is violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the human rights guaranteed to him under several International covanents for which Union of India is a Signatory and further sought for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay him suitable compensation in the form of exemplary damages for their illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional exercise of power and having deprived of his fundamental and human rights, urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) THE relevant brief facts necessary for this Court to consider and answer the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties are stated as hereunder.

(3.) THE petitioner is an Indian Citizen and permanent resident of Bangalore. He has contended that in the year 1985 he went to Saudi arabia for his employment and he was employed as an Assistant electrical Foreman in Saudi Binladin in Organisation and worked there for 10 years. Subsequently he joined A. R. Namla Corporation, at Madeena. In the month of February 1997, he made all the arrangements to visit India for the purpose of getting himself married. On 15. 2. 1997, the petitioner went to his workspot for the purpose 01 giving certain instructions to his Subordinate employees. Around 10 clock in the morning, Madeena Investigating Officials went to his workspot and asked the petitioner to accompany them. The petitioner was taken away from his workspot and he was detained by the said investigating Officials. Thereafter the petitioner made enquiries and asked the reason for his detention. He was informed that Interpol, new Delhi (in short IPND) had sent a message to them to arrest him. Reason for his arrest were not made known to him at the time of his arrest. It is further stated that despite several communications sent by him to IPND to furnish him the reasons and the necessary documents with regard to the detention of the petitioner, the IPND did not respond to the communication made by him. The petitioner was released on 27. 5. 1997. Therefore the petitioner has contended that his detention was illegal from 15. 2. 97 to 27. 5. 1997, and therefore he has urged that he is entitled for compensation to be awarded by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in his favour as claimed by him.