2002 (2) TMI 134 - HC - Customs

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court based on the petitioner's place of residence and business activities.
2. Request for disclosure of grounds of detention and documents relied upon by the detaining authority.
3. Comparison of the present case with judgments related to detention orders.
4. Suppression of facts regarding filing and withdrawal of petitions in other High Courts.
5. Consideration of the petitioner's conduct in moving multiple High Courts and avoiding arrest.
6. Petitioner's liberty to apply for recalling the order of detention.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus and challenged the order of detention dated 14th August, 2001. The Court examined the petitioner's claim that a substantial part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The petitioner's residential and business addresses were highlighted, but the Court refrained from delving into this issue at that stage.

2. Request for Disclosure of Grounds:
The petitioner requested the disclosure of grounds of detention and documents relied upon by the detaining authority. The Court considered the petitioner's argument that the grounds were similar to those served on his brother, whose detention order was set aside by the Gujarat High Court. However, the Court declined to direct the respondents to produce the grounds before it, citing lack of availability and the petitioner's actions in multiple jurisdictions.

3. Comparison with Previous Judgments:
The Court analyzed previous judgments related to detention orders, particularly a case where detention orders were revoked for similar grounds. It was emphasized that the grounds of detention were not available, and the Court was not convinced to extend the principles based on the facts presented in the current case.

4. Suppression of Facts:
The petitioner had filed and withdrawn a petition before the Gujarat High Court before approaching the present Court. The Court noted the suppression of this fact by the petitioner, which was considered fatal to the petition based on precedents highlighting the importance of disclosing such information.

5. Consideration of Petitioner's Conduct:
The Court evaluated the petitioner's conduct in moving between different High Courts and avoiding arrest. This conduct, along with the lack of grounds of detention and suppression of facts, led the Court to refuse the petitioner's request for assistance and relief.

6. Liberty to Apply for Recalling Order:
Lastly, the petitioner's plea for the liberty to apply for recalling the order of detention was addressed. Due to the petitioner's conduct and circumstances of the case, the Court declined to grant such an opportunity, emphasizing the dismissal of the petition.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition, stating that the petitioner could pursue appropriate legal proceedings upon surrender, without the dismissal hindering the petitioner from raising grounds for quashing the order of detention in the future.

← Previous Next →