9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition in the Kerala High Court. 2. Delay in executing the detention order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition in the Kerala High Court: The respondents contested the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. The detenu was apprehended at Sahar Airport, Bombay, and the detention order was passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, in New Delhi. The respondents contended that the mere fact of the detenu's arrest and detention in Kerala did not confer jurisdiction on the Kerala High Court. The petitioner argued that the fact of detention is essential in a habeas corpus petition, and since the detention occurred in Kerala, the Kerala High Court had jurisdiction. The court referred to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which allows a High Court to exercise jurisdiction where the cause of action arises wholly or in part within its territory. The court also cited precedents, including the Gujarat High Court's decision in *Manjulaben v. C.T.A. Pillay* and the Madras High Court's decision in *P. Subramani v. State of Karnataka*, which supported the view that the place of detention forms part of the cause of action. The court concluded that since the detenu was arrested and detained in Kerala, these facts constituted part of the cause of action, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Kerala High Court. Thus, the original petition was deemed maintainable. 2. Delay in Executing the Detention Order: The petitioner challenged the detention on the ground of significant delay in executing the detention order. The detention order was passed on 17-5-1993, but the detenu was arrested only on 4-6-1996, after a delay of three years. The petitioner contended that the detenu had not absconded and was available at known locations. The authorities did not take proper steps to execute the detention order, nor did they attempt to cancel the bail granted to the detenu. The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, claimed that the detenu was absconding, and the Enforcement Directorate made multiple attempts to locate him. However, the court found the explanations unsatisfactory. The authorities failed to provide detailed steps taken to trace the detenu, did not investigate the sureties provided for the bail, and did not attempt to cancel the bail order. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala*, which held that unexplained delays in executing detention orders cast doubt on the genuineness of the detaining authority's satisfaction. The court also cited its own decision in O.P. No. 16273/96, where a delay of 6.5 years in executing a detention order led to its quashing. Upon reviewing the records and affidavits, the court concluded that the authorities failed to explain the delay adequately. The mere assertion that the detenu was absconding was insufficient. Consequently, the court quashed the detention order and directed the immediate release of the detenu, provided he was not required in any other case.
|
