9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Challenge to detention orders under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974; Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain writ petitions under Article 226(1A) of the Constitution. Judgment details: 1. The petitions challenge the detention orders of two detenus under the impugned Act, who were initially detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The petitioners argue that the detenus have been deprived of their right to move freely and reside within the State of Gujarat, giving rise to a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226(1A) of the Constitution. 2. The detenus were served with fresh detention orders under the impugned Act after being released from detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. The respondents argue that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Gujarat State, challenging the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. 3. The Court's hearing is limited to determining its jurisdiction under Article 226(1A) of the Constitution, with other challenges reserved for future arguments. 4. Article 226(1A) grants High Courts jurisdiction based on where the cause of action arises. The Court must establish if any part of the cause of action falls within its territorial jurisdiction. 5. Reference to previous cases indicates that Article 19 provisions are relevant in considering the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226(1A) of the Constitution. 6. The suspension of Article 19 due to the emergency proclamation does not preclude its reference for determining the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226(1A). 7. The detenus were not released upon the expiry of their previous detention orders but were served with fresh orders under the impugned Act, leading to a continuation of their detention. The initial arrest at Baroda forms part of the cause of action within the Court's jurisdiction. 8. The detenus' ordinary residence in the State, initial detention in the State, and subsequent transfer to Jaipur support the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. The detenus were not set at liberty upon the expiry of previous orders, indicating a continuation of their detention and a cause of action within the Court's territorial limits.
|
