1989 (4) TMI 331 - HC - FEMA

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in a Habeas Corpus Petition challenging a detention order under the COFEPOSA Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a resident of Khamgaon, challenged the detention order against his son-in-law, a dealer in imported cars, under the COFEPOSA Act. The detenu, a permanent resident of Bombay, was served the detention order in Bombay and is currently held in a Bombay jail. The objection raised was that the Nagpur Bench should not entertain the petition as the detaining authority's seat is in New Delhi, and the alleged activities took place in Cochin and Delhi, outside the territorial jurisdiction of Bombay High Court. The petitioner's residence in Vidarbha Region was the sole justification for filing in Nagpur Bench. The court considered the historical background of Article 226 and the concept of cause of action. It was argued that the cause of action is not attracted under Article 226(2) and that the place of detention, not the residence of a close relative, provides a cause of action. The court referred to the case law and held that the place of detention being Bombay gives jurisdiction to the High Court at Bombay.

The court examined the interpretation of Article 226 and the concept of cause of action before and after the Fifteenth Amendment. The Amendment introduced the concept of cause of action to address hardships faced by citizens due to jurisdictional limitations. The court clarified that cause of action is not irrelevant under Article 226 and that the place of detention is crucial in determining jurisdiction. The objections raised about territorial jurisdiction were upheld, and the court directed the transmission of the case to Bombay for further proceedings. The court emphasized that the place of detention, in this case, Bombay, provides the cause of action, granting jurisdiction to the High Court at Bombay to entertain the petition challenging the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act.