1994 (8) TMI 150 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Preventive detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Grounds for quashing the detention order.
4. Territorial jurisdiction and cause of action.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Preventive Detention Order:
The petitioner sought to avert preventive detention pursuant to an order dated 3-5-1994 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department (Special) Government of Gujarat, under Section 3(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The petitioner argued that the detention order was passed for a wrongful purpose without any credible allegations necessitating such an order between the period of bail (10-9-1993) and the detention order (3-5-1994).

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the quashment of the detention order. The respondents raised a preliminary objection, contending that the matter should be left to the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. The respondents argued that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, making the petition untenable.

3. Grounds for Quashing the Detention Order:
The counsel for the petitioner attacked the detention order as being passed on extraneous reasons and for a wrongful purpose. The petitioner relied on several judgments, including JT 1992 (4) SC 49 and (1990) I SCC 328, to support the argument that the order was passed for a wrongful purpose. The petitioner maintained that he was unjustly implicated in the prosecution and that the detention order was a result of this wrongful implication.

4. Territorial Jurisdiction and Cause of Action:
The core question was whether part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The undisputed facts included:
- Seizure took place at village Delsor, Dohed.
- The detention order was passed by the Government of Gujarat at Gandhinagar.
- Criminal prosecution was filed and pending in the Court at Godhara.
- The petitioner was arrested at Indore and obtained bail from the High Court of Gujarat.
- No recovery was made on search at Indore.
- The detention order was yet to be executed, and grounds were yet to be served.

The petitioner argued that the threat of arrest at Indore constituted part of the cause of action, thereby giving the Madhya Pradesh High Court territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2). However, the court found that the assumed enforcement of the detention order at Indore did not furnish a cause of action within its jurisdiction. The court referred to several judgments, including AIR 1985 SC 1289 and 1993 I Ker. L.T. 35, to support this view.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction concerning the detention order passed by the Government of Gujarat. The petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the interim order was vacated. The court left all points concerning the detention order litigable in the appropriate jurisdiction. Parties were left to bear their own costs of the petition.

← Previous Next →