9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice thereof. Brief facts:- In the year 2000, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad (hereinafter described as `the D.R.I.') started investigations into duty evasion by various 100% Export-Oriented Units (EOUs) by indulging in clandestine removal of duty free imported and indigenous raw materials without payment of duty. These EOUs were under an obligation to manufacture finished products and export/ deemed export the same as per provisions of the Exim Policy and Handbook of Procedure read with the provisions of the Customs Act,1962 (hereinafter described as `the 1962 Act') and the Central Excise Act,1944. To show fulfillment of export obligation, these EOUs utlized forged Advanced Licences/ AROs issued in favour of non-existing Murabad/ Kanpur based firms/ companies and showed clearance of finished goods against the forged Advance Licences/ AROs without actually removing/ selling any goods against these forged instruments, as declared by them. On 4.12.2000, one Shri Roopchand Jain of Mumbai made statement, Annexure P1, before the Senior Intelligence Officer of the D.R.I. disclosing the involvement of the petitioner in the aforementione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intendent of Police (Detective), Ludhiana. It has been averred that the present petition is not maintainable qua the answering respondents as the detention order has been passed by respondent no.3 at Gandhinagar, Gujarat. Moreover, the detention order is at the pre-execution stage and without service thereof, a writ petition is not maintainable. However, it has been admitted that the petitioner is a resident of Ludhiana and State of Punjab. In their written statement, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have taken up preliminary objections that the instant petition is not maintainable in this Court as all the cause of action has arisen in the State of Gujarat or Maharasthra and that the petitioner has wrongly given the address of the State of Punjab and actually, he is resident of Mumbai; that since the petitioner has not surrendered, the petition for habeas corpus does not lie and that there was no delay in passing the impugned order. Details of the correspondence/ facts have been mentioned in para 6 of the preliminary objections. On merits, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have averred that the petitioner has, in fact, indulged in illegal activities and caused loss to the revenue and it was necessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction of this Court. In D.N.Anand Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance, 1993(2) R.C.R.(Crl.) 104, this Court observed as under:- "Some effort was made by the learned counsel for the Union of India that the petitioner was a resident of Delhi and not of Ambala as claimed by him and as such no cause of action arose to him within the jurisdiction of this Court. A reference to the pleadings in paras 7 of - the return will show that summons were sent to the petitioner at his Ambala address which were stated to have been received back with the postal remarks that the addressee was not available at his shop in spite of repeated visits. Even in the detention order Annexure P1, the petitioner has been described with his two addresses one is 7/4 Roop Nagar,Delhi, and the second is 66, Mall Road, Ambala Cantt. The authorities had thus, gone after the petitioner both at his Delhi address as well as at his Ambala address. It cannot, thus, be gainfully said that no cause of action arose to the petitioner within the jurisdiction of this Court. This contention of the learned counsel is refuted." In Tirlok Nath Mittal Versus Union of India, 1994(1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 247, a learned Single Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingh Dhingra's case (supra), the detention order was passed by the State Government. The said order was going to be served within the jurisdiction of another State. In that light, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave the following findings:- `The High Court should be slow to assume jurisdiction over the matter on which a sister court can with more efficacy, promptitude and exactitude hold an enquiry and grant relief. It would, therefore, be the High Court in the State which passed detention order which could grant adequate relief to the proposed detenu as that Court has the necessary equipment and all the means to expand and inquire into the subject. In this view of the matter the order of detention is not liable to be quashed by the High Court.' 15. Here is a case where the detention order has been passed by the Central Govt., which has the jurisdiction over the entire country, the Central Govt. itself wanted to execute the order in the State of Punjab when its officers searched the premises of the husband of the petitioner at Jalandhar and Chandigarh." Moreover, if the contention of the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 is accepted, then it implies that a perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions made under all laws. It is in pursuance of this self-evolved judicial policy and in conformity with the self-imposed internal restrictions that the courts insist that the aggrieved person first allow the due operation and implementation of the concerned law and exhaust the remedies provided by it before approaching the High Court and this Court to invoke their discretionary extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 respectively. That jurisdiction by its very nature is to be used sparingly and in circumstances where no other efficacious remedy is available. We have while discussing the relevant authorities earlier dealt in detail with the circumstances under which these extraordinary powers are used and are declined to be used by the courts. To accept Shri Jain's present contention would mean that the courts should disregard all these time-honoured and well-tested judicial self-restraints and norms and exercise their said powers,in every case before the detention order is executed. Secondly, as has been rightly pointed out by Shri Sibal for the appellants, as far as detention orders are concerned if in every case a detenu is permitted to challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt, execution of the impugned detention order may kindly be stayed in the interest of justice, equity and fair play." The petitioner has not placed on record order dated 5.3.2004, the quashing of which he ha sprayed for. The only reference to this order finds mention in Annexure P16 which is an order passed by the competent authority while apparently exercising its powers under Section 7 of the Act, which reads as under:- "7. Powers in relation to absconding persons.- (1) If the appropriate Government has reason to believe that a person in respect of whom a detention order has been made has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed, the Government may-- (a) make a report in writing of the fact to a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction in the place where the said person ordinarily resides; and thereupon the provisions of sections 82, 83, 84 and 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), shall apply in respect of the said person and his property as if the order directing that he be detained were a warrant issued by the Magistrate; (b) by order notified in the Official Gazette direct the said p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
