K.S.Varma, J. - (1.) For the reasons to be stated later on we dismissed the writ petition on 15-12-1982. We now propose to give reasons for dismissing the petition.
(2.) The petitioner in this petition has challenged the order passed by the State Government. Annexure 6 to the writ petition. By this order the petitioner has to be detained under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974. The prayer made in the. writ petition is that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in 'pursuance of the impugned order dated 16-6-1982. It has also been prayed that respondent No. 3 be directed to return to the petitioner the seized amount of Rs. 14,700/- and the 11 watches details of which are given in Annexure 7 to the writ petition. During the course of arguments, it was conceded that the petitioner has not been arrested so far.
(3.) The Deputy Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is not under detention as he has not surrendered in pursuance of the order of detention. The contention is that the petitioner is not in detention actually or constructively and the question of setting him at liberty does not arise. It is contended that the words 'detain and arrest' in Article 22 of the Constitution imply some sort of confinement or physical restraint on the liberty of movements of the detenus. As long as the petitioner is not under arrest and has not been actually detained in the sense that he is not in confinement or there is no physical restrain on the liberty of movements of the petitioner, he cannot be said to have been detained so as to enable him to move a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus,;