9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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. - CRWP No. 340 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2017 - MR. SURINDER GUPTA, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep K. Wadhawan, Advocate And Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana ORDER SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner-Arun Mahajan vide this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India has sought to invoke jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for setting aside order of detention bearing no. PSA-1211/CR-21(2)/SPL3(A) dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person or authority to whom writ is to be issued should be resident in or located within the territory over which the High Court has jurisdiction. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 02.11.2010 by Senior Intelligence Officer vide order under the provisions of Section 104 of the Custom Act, 1962 (Annexure P-6). He was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai and was remanded to judicial custody. He, thereafter, moved application for retracting from his statements dated 02.11.2010, 03.11.2010, 09.11.2010, 10.11.2010 and 16.11.2010 made by him to DRI officials {Annexure P-9 (colly)}. He was released on bail in that case vide order dated 14.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay (Annexure P-10). Thereafter, he had been appearing and dealing with Custom Authorities, Mumbai and moving applications. In his applications to competent authority, he questioned the proceedings against him under the order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Import). The petitioner filed Writ Petition no. 1243 of 2011 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, relating to release of confiscated goods seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, which was disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining to his bail, release of the detained cranes etc. were initiated against him in the Court at Mumbai. The proposal for detention of petitioner was passed and sponsored by Screening Committee at Mumbai and the impugned detention order was passed by the detaining authority for the offence committed within the jurisdiction of Mumbai, Maharashtra. No part of cause of action leading to passing of detention order arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, hence, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. It is also averred that the plea of petitioner that he is also resident of Sonipat, Haryana or that he has industrial/business unit in Haryana is of no help to petitioner for filing this petition before this Court. Even otherwise, the residence of detenue at a particular place would not confer jurisdiction on the Court where he is residing or carrying out business. 7. When the petition was taken up for hearing the issue of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition was raised and arguments were addressed on this issue by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents, as such, I first take up the issue of ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 2007 AIR (SC) 1812 and Brahm Pal Panchal vs. Union of India through Secretary and others, CRWP No. 14978 of 2012 decided on 11.10.2012. 10. Firstly, I take submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. In case of Tejinder Singh Makkar (supra) , warrants of detention had not been executed even after the lapse of period of period of 7 years of its issue and learned counsel for respondents had sought liberty to pass fresh order in this regard. On this ground the detention order was quashed. In that case the detention order was passed at Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat and the same was to be executed at Ludhiana and learned Single Judge had held that petition was maintainable in this Court and this Court has territorial jurisdiction over the matter. Though, the Division Bench in LPA took note of this observation but the same was not discussed while setting aside the order of learned Single Judge. In number of cases referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Single Bench of this Court in various cases have held that in such matters cause of action accrues at the place where the detention order is to be executed. 11. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an give relief under Art. 226............... 12. It was further observed in para 14 of the judgment as follows:- 14............................What Article 226 requires is residence or location as a fact and if therefore there is a seat from which the Government functions as a fact even though that seat is not mentioned in the Constitution the High Court within whose territories that seat is located will be the High Court having jurisdiction under Article 226 so far as the orders of the Government as such are concerned. Therefore, the view taken in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao, 1953 SCR 1144, and K.S. Rashid and son v. The Income-Tax Investigation Commission, 1954 SCR 738 that there is two-fold limitation on the power of the High Court to issue writs etc. Under Article 226, namely, (i) the power is to be exercised 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction', that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction, and (ii) the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be within those territories which clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining the appellants from taking any steps to take possession of the land acquired. Under sub-section (5) of section 52 of the Act the appellants were entitled to require the respondent to surrender or deliver possession of the lands acquired forthwith and upon their failure to do so, take immediate steps to secure such possession under sub-section (6) thereof. 8. The expression 'cause of action' is tersely defined in Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure: The 'cause of action' means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. The mere service of notice under section 52 (2) of the Act on the respondents at their registered office at 18-B, Brabourne Road, Calcutta i.e. within the territorial limits of the State of West Bengal, could not give rise to a cause of action within that territory unless the service of such notice was an integral part of the cause of action.................... 16. As per provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
