9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Orders on constitution of a larger Bench and on February 04, 1998, Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice constituted this Full Bench to answer the reference. 3. The factual setting in which the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the Habeas Corpus Petition arose as under :- 4. The petitioner has brought this petition on behalf of his friend Arvind Kumar Babel, son of Shri Dharmesh K. Babel who has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Act (he shall be referred to hereinafter as detenue ). The petitioner himself and the detenue claim to be permanent residents of Rajasthan and claim to be residing for the purpose of earning livelihood in Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner and the detenue were both in Jodhpur in the State of Rajasthan on June 24, 1997. One Shri R.R. Yadav, Sub-Inspector of Police, PCB, CID, Mumbai took the petitioner and the detenue to the Police Station City Police, Jodhpur and later took the detenue in his custody at Jodhpur. It is also alleged that the detenue was served with the detention Order on February 14, 1997 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Mini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate, Mumbai where he submitted his bail application and was granted bail on 30-9-96. The proceedings for prosecution are also pending in Mumbai only. Since he had not adhered to the Bail order, the proceeding for cancellation of bail were also initiated at Mumbai. No doubt Shri Arvind K. Babel could be detained at Jodhpur but he was immediately lodged in Yerawada Central Prison, Pune, in compliance with the Detention Order by the Mumbai Police. Therefore, the mere fact that Shri Babel was served with the Detention Order at Jodhpur does not give the petitioner any right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. On the contrary and for the facts narrated above, it is most respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in question and the same may be dismissed on this ground alone. 8. Thus the point for determination is whether factual taking into custody of the detenue at Jodhpur in the State of Rajasthan even for purposes of being carried away to Pune for further detention would give rise to cause of action or part of it for clothing this Court with Jurisdiction to entertain a petition for i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not only the order was served upon the detenue in Salem in Tamil Nadu his liberty was deprived in the same place and the grounds of detention were also served on him at the same place. Therefore, the essential act of detention physically happened in Tamil Nadu as far as the petitioner is concerned and, therefore, a considerable part of the cause of action took place in the State of Tamil Nadu, conferring jurisdiction upon this Court. 14. In Smt. Manjulaben v. C.T.A. Pillay, New Delhi 1976 Cri LJ 889, in Paragraph 8 of the Judgment, it was observed as follows:- Now it is clear from the facts of these cases that the detenus have their ordinary place of residence in this State. They were initially detained in the State and were then transferred to the Central Jail at Jaipur. These facts are undisputed. Their detention was continued under the fresh orders of detention issued under the provisions of the impugned Act. The detenus were not set at liberty on the expiry of the previous orders of detention passed under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. Under their fresh orders of detention the detenus were kept in the Central Jail, Jaipur. Their initial detention at Baro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplaining of violations of any of the rights guaranteed by Article 19 would be entertainable by any of the High Courts in India irrespective of the situation of the office or residence of the respondent or the place of accrual of cause of action. It was pointed out that such a construction would defeat the very purpose of amendment incorporated in Clause (2) in Article 226 of the Constitution. The point was further elaborated in the following words 1988 Cri LJ 641 at p. 646: The Delhi Court in Smt. Ramadevi v. K.A. Gafoor, ILR (1976) 1 Delhi 72considered a similar question at greater length. It went into the history leading to the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. In Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532, Chief Justice B.P. Sinha speaking for the majority had observed :- The concept of cause of action cannot in our opinion be introduced in Article 226, for by doing so we shall be doing away with the express provision contained therein which requires that the person or authority to whom the writ is to be issued should be resident in or located within the territories over which the High Court has jurisdiction. It is true that this may result in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ody and where she was served with the order and grounds of detention, suffice to attract the jurisdiction of this Court. We would however like to make it clear that convenience of the detaining authority and the factor of greater suitability of another forum are not to be ignored. In appropriate cases, a direction to the person questioning a detention to move other Courts also having jurisdiction, may be required to be given. 16. Two single Bench cases of Punjab Haryana High Court were also cited. In Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab 1987 Cri LJ 958,, which was considered in Ramchand's case 1988 Cri LJ 641 (Bombay) (supra), the detenues were arrested at Amritsar for commission of offence. They were transferred after their arrest at Amritsar to be tried by the Additional Special Court al Jodhpur. A writ petition was filed in Punjab and Haryana High Court for production of detenues before it and for judicial enquiry in to detenues before it and for judicial enquiry in to the incident which took place in Jodhpur Jail and for transfer of the detenues back to somewhere in the State of Punjab facilitating interviews by their relations and friends. However, in this case, the questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the detention order was passed or he could have applied for pre-arrest bail to the concerned Court. The Court further observed as follows :- Since the detenue was invested with the actionable cause of action when the detention order was passed, the invoking of the doctrine of accrual of part of cause of action is totally misconceived and legally unfounded. Part of cause of action, in fact, emanates from the whole cause of action. Hence we do not agree o recognize the right of the detenue to challenge the order of detention by choosing the forum where his arrest was made on the ground of accrual of part of cause of action. under Section 4 of the Act, the detention order can be exhibited (sic) at any place in India. However, the detenue cannot be allowed to choose his forum of action on the basis of his arrest. If such a right is recognized he can regulate his arrest at a particular place for choosing his territorial jurisdiction. We, therefore, hold that the whole of cause of action accrued as soon as the detention order was made. The subsequent arrest of the detenue in the execution of the detention order is of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove; such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything ;which if not proved would give the defendant a right to an immediate Judgment must be part of the cause of action. It is, in other words, a bundle of facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It is a media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. 21. Applying the above tests, we cannot escape the conclusion that factual detention of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies of the State of Rajasthan or not. If the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the territories of the State of Rajasthan then this Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. We are of the opinion that service of the detention order and taking of the detenue in custody in execution of such an order within the territories of the State of Rajasthan shall supply part of cause of action for challenging the detention order. It is a different matter however, that whether to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or not is within the discretion of the High Court and in exercise of such discretion, the Court may even say on the grounds of expediency or otherwise that even if it had jurisdiction it shall not exercise it because in its opinion, it would be proper that a petition is brought before a High Court within the territories of which substantial part of cause of action had arisen or that any other High Court would be able to take cognizance of the matter and grant relief after holding an inquiry with more efficacy promptitude and exactitude. In cases where the High Court finds that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
