9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-7-1996 issued under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act by respondent No. 3. The order was issued with a view to prevent the detenu from smuggling goods. The grounds of detention dated 3-7-1996 were served upon the detenu on 22-8-1996. 3. The detention order and the grounds of detention have been assailed on various grounds but they are not necessary to mention at this stage as in the written reply filed to the petition the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra have raised a preliminary objection that High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to entertain and hear this petition, as the order of detention has been issued by the Officer specially empowered by the State of Maharashtra at Mumbai which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Though the detenu is a permanent resident of Punjab, the order of detention was executed by the Batala police on the request of the State of Maharashtra. The prejudicial activities in which the detenu is involved took place in Mumbai, and he has been detained in respect of prejudicial activities in the State of Maharashtra. The detenu was also arrested at Mumbai an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same effect as the first one cited above. 9. Next judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Harish Taneja v. Union of India (1984) 2 All India Cri LR 130. 10. Last judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Ramchand Santumal Bhatia v. Tarun Roy 1988 Cri LJ 641. In that case, it was held that part of cause of action certainly arose when the detenu was taken into custody to serve out the period of detention. The detention order was served under the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and, thus, it was held by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the detention order was competent in the Bombay High Court. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, have cited the following judgments. The first one is Vijender Kumar Jain v. Union of India 1994(1) RCR 194. In that case the order of detention was passed in Delhi. The accused was arrested in Delhi. A writ petition against the detention order was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was held to be not maintainable as no cause of action or part of cause of action did arise at Jalan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as, thus, dismissed on the point that Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain that petition. 15. Another judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is P. K. Mondal v. Union of India 1990 Lab IC 185. In that case the petitioner had challenged his dismissal order before the Calcutta High Court. The Calcutta High Court had dismissed his petition as that High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as according to the learned Judge of that Court, no cause of action arose to the petitioner under the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court though charge-sheet was received by the petitioner in Durgapur within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. 16. Lastly, a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties AIR 1985 SC 1289. In that case, land was acquired which was situated in Rajasthan. Notice under Rajasthan Act was served to the owner in West Bengal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere service of notice did not give rise to cause of action in West Bengal and the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while determining the question of jurisdiction in Sardar Ujagar Singh Sekhwan v. The State of Punjab Crl. W.P. No. 426 of 1986, expressed the following view : ...Furthermore, this Court would be slow to assume jurisdiction over a matter on which a sister Court can, with more efficacy, promptitude and exactitude, hold an inquiry and grant relief. In making this observation, this Court has in mind the availability of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur which can grant prompt and adequate relief to the petitioners. 19. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Judge as under : ...Let us assume that this Court has the jurisdiction (not by any means now holding so) but it cannot be denied that the Rajasthan High Court too has jurisdiction. The petitioners thus must be relegated to seek their remedies in that Court. Though, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide and extraordinary, it yet remains discretionary with this Court to exercise it or not in a given set of circumstances. Finally, the Hon'ble Judge held as under : I am still of the same view. It is the Bombay High Court which can grant adequate relief to the petitioner and the petitioner is rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
