9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uary, 1989. This petition filed on 1st March, 1989, came up for preliminary hearing on 3rd March, 1989 on which date rule returnable on 17th April, 1989 was issued. In the return filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, preliminary objection has been raised - to which our attention was drawn before the hearing on merits commenced - that Nagpur Bench should not entertain this petition since neither a seat of the detaining authority - the Joint Secretary to the Government, of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi - is within Vidarbha Region nor has any part of cause of action arisen within that area. 3. Having heard parties at length on this issue, it seems to us that the preliminary objection deserves to be uphel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot override or abridge jurisdiction and power conferred under Article 226 on the High Court as such. 6. It is lastly contended that ratio of that decision is that in the matter of writ petitions under Article 226, such objections should not be entertained at the stage of final hearing. We have carefully gone through the said decision. Such is not its ratio. On the contrary, it is observed: Ordinarily we are extremely slow in entertaining such matters which are required to be entertained and tried at Bombay, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, when the matter has already been admitted as back as on 25-9-1984 and if we may say so we have decided to hear and decide this matter while sitting at Nagpur. Thus, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. It can issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories, directions, orders or writs of the nature mentioned therein for the enforcement of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose. The above observations have been quoted and relied upon in Nitin Industrial Association AIR1986Bom298 (supra). 8. The concept of cause of action has been introduced in Article 226 by the Fifteenth Amendment because of the consistent views taken by Courts that under Article 226(1) cause of action was an irrelevant factor and that only Punjab High Court had jurisdiction with relation to Central Capital Government and other authorities wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f action would differ from case to case and enactment to enactment. Is the place of residence of a close relative of a COFEPOSA detenu by itself a cause of action in the matter of a challenge to the order of detention by a writ petition under Article 226? We do not think so. That would be too farfetched. However, there can be no about the place of detention providing a cause of action. That place in the instant case is Bombay and hence. High Court at Bombay will have jurisdiction to entertain this petition. 11. We, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection and direct forthwith transmission of the papers and proceedings to Bombay where the Registrar shall place the matter before the appropriate Bench. By consent of parties, we fix 24th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
