Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 763 - HC - CustomsWrit of habeas corpus - Detention order - Jurisdiction of Court to entertain the appeal - proceedings under COFEPOSA - Held that - As per provisions of Article 226 of Constitution of India, there are two limitations placed on the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. Firstly, that the power is to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction; and secondly, that the person or authority, to whom this Court is empowered to issue writ, must be within those territories i.e. amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location. When the aforesaid tests are applied the safe conclusion, which can be drawn in this case is that this Court lacks jurisdiction in facts and circumstances of this case. All the actions against petitioner were being taken in Mumbai. The incident had accrued in Mumbai. He has violated the provisions of law in Mumbai. He was arrested there; released on bail; and also filed writ petition before the High Court of Mumbai in that regard. Taking recourse to above provisions, the competent authority of Government of Maharashtra issued his detention order in exercise of power under Section 3 (1) of COFEPOSA Act. No part of cause of action has accrued to petitioner within the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner, if wants to challenge the act of competent authority which passed the order of his detention, he could approach Bombay High Court for redressal of his grievance. The jurisdiction lies only with Bombay High Court within whose jurisdiction cause of action arose and lies. The petition is dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction with this Court to entertain this petition.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Validity of the detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The primary issue raised by the respondents was whether the Punjab and Haryana High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner's counsel argued that since the petitioner was also a resident of Sonipat (Haryana) and carried out business activities there, the order of detention could be executed within the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner relied on several precedents where it was held that the cause of action accrues at the place where the detention order is to be executed. However, the respondents contended that the detention order was passed by the Government of Maharashtra, and all related proceedings, including the arrest, bail, and representations, took place in Mumbai. They argued that the mere fact that the petitioner had an address in Sonipat did not confer jurisdiction on the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The respondents supported their contention with several Supreme Court judgments, including Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh vs. Union of India, which held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 depends on the location of the person or authority against whom the writ is sought. The Court, after considering the arguments and precedents, concluded that the jurisdiction to issue a writ under Article 226 depends on the location of the authority passing the order and not on the residence of the person affected by the order. The Court observed that all actions against the petitioner were taken in Mumbai, and the cause of action arose there. Consequently, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition and dismissed it on this ground. 2. Validity of the detention order issued under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA: The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 25.01.2012 issued by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA. The petitioner argued that the detention order was invalid and sought its quashing through a writ of habeas corpus. However, since the Court concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition, it did not delve into the merits of the detention order's validity. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could approach the Bombay High Court for redressal of his grievances regarding the detention order, as the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. Conclusion: The petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction with the Punjab and Haryana High Court to entertain the petition. The Court held that the appropriate forum for the petitioner to challenge the detention order was the Bombay High Court, where the cause of action arose and the competent authority passed the order.
|