IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 1009 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.KUNHABDULLA, S/O IBRAHIM, AGED 50 YEARS, MANJAKKANDY THAZHA HOUSE, PONMERI P.O., VILLIAPALLY, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS. 2. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), KOZHIKODE. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.1009 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T In the year 1991, an order under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, was issued by the 2nd respondent for detention of the petitioner. Pursuant to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, a warrant of arrest was issued by the 1st respondent. That arrest warrant could not be executed, apparently, since the petitioner evaded arrest. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent has now passed a general order directing withdrawal of all orders passed under the Preventive Detention Laws, which remain unexecuted for the last 15 years. But, since the 2nd respondent did not communicate the same to the 1st respondent, the warrant still holds good. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent No.3 or any other officer acting under his directions not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance to by the Order No.701/SSA-4/95 issued by the 1st respondent. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to inform the 1st respondent whether the petitioner's arrest or detention is required under law. iii) Any other reliefs which may be prayed for from time to time.” 2 2. I have heard the parties. 3. The petitioner is a fugitive from justice. If any order has been passed by the 2nd respondent as stated by the petitioner, that is purely a internal matter, which would not give raise to any right on the petitioner, who is a violator of law. Having evaded arrest for the last 15 years, he cannot simply come and ask the Court to direct the 2nd respondent to issue direction to withdraw the warrant of arrest. He has no such right also. I am not, therefore, inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, who is a fugitive from justice. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge