MOHD NASHRUDDIN KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned petitioners have preferred their respective writ petitions to seek similar reliefs. The underlying facts in these three cases are also similar, and stem out of - more or less, the same transaction. Learned counsel for the petitioner in each of these three cases is the same, and so is the counsel for the respondents. Learned counsels have advanced common arguments in all these three petitions, apart from pointing out certain specific features of each of these cases. Since the issues raised in all the three petitions are the same, we proceed to decide these petitions by this common judgment.

(2.) The reliefs sought by each of the petitioners is to seek quashing of the respective Detention Orders issued by respondent No.2 against each of them dated 21.01.2020 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act), and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioners also assail the respective notifications issued by respondent No.2 in respect of each of them under Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act dated 17.03.2020 [in the case of the petitioner Mohd Nashruddin Khan(MNK)], dated 08.06.2020 (in the case of Gopal Gupta), and dated 17.03.2020 [in the case of Amit Pal Singh (APS)]. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid Detention Orders at the pre-execution stage.

(3.) The submission of Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners is that a writ petition challenging the Detention Order - at the pre-execution stage, is maintainable, as held by the Supreme Court in Additional Secretary to Government of India and Others Vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Anr, 1992 Supp1 SCC 496. His submission is that each of them have made out a case for interference with the Detention Order at this stage, on the grounds set out in Alka Subhash Gadia (supra) which, in any event, are not exhaustive.