9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he maintainability of the petition were raised on behalf of the respondents. In answer to that on behalf of the petitioner it is sought to be contended that this Court would have territorial jurisdiction considering that a substantial part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Apart from the address in the petition, our attention has been invited to the various other documents including the order passed against Tariq Haji Gaffar, brother of the petitioner, in which at Para 17 the premises of the petitioner herein are shown as "10, Badrudin Chambers, Near Sadanand Hotel, Sarang Street, Mumbai-400 003". Our attention is also invited to the documentary evidence placed on record from pages 84 onwards of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (S.C.) = 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 496 there is now an additional ground namely that if on similar grounds if the High Court has released or quashed order of detention of another detainee then in respect of the same grounds considering Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain and grant the relief as presently prayed for. It is lastly contended relying on paragraph eight of the judgment in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Muneesh Suneja, AIR 2001 SC 854 that considering that the order of detention has not yet been given effect to in the event the petitioner makes a representation for revocation of the detention order the respondents be directed to consider the same and dispose it of cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the said petition we find that in another Misc. Petition namely Criminal Misc. Application No. 2900-M of 2001 has been taken out and a learned Judge of Punjab Haryana High Court was pleased to grant stay in the matter of arrest of the petitioner herein. Those proceedings have been disposed of. The orders have not been made available to this Court. 3.The petitioner thereafter on 24th December, 2001 filed a petition before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad wherein the reliefs prayed for are the same or similar as prayed for in the present petition. That petition was disposed of as withdrawn by a learned Single Judge of that Court by order dated 26th December, 2001. The order does not disclose that leave of the Court was sought to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut that the judgment in Additional Secretary to Government of India Ors. v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia Anr. (supra) was not considered or in issue in the case of Pawan Bhartiya (supra). From that judgment what we find is that there were six persons against whom orders of detention had been issued. In respect of five of them orders had been withdrawn before their arrest except in so far as the appellant before the Apex Court. The appellant had earlier approached the Delhi High Court by filing petition, which was rejected. Against that rejection the appellant preferred an Appeal before the Apex Court. Before the Apex Court it was contended that detention order of five out of six persons had been revoked by the Competent Authority on the arou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers whose orders were revoked. The Apex Court also noted that considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no purpose would be served by continuing the detention order and in those circumstances that the detention order was revoked. Prima facie we are not persuaded to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Counsel that this judgment has added one more ground in addition to those in the case of Additional Secretary to Government of India Ors. v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia Anr. (supra) namely that when the persons similarly situated if one or more whose case is identified and order of detention has been quashed by the High Court then in respect of similar grounds in respect of another person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner was asked to surrender and withdraw the petition whereupon the petitioner had withdrawn the petition. Considering that the source has not been disclosed this aspect cannot be considered. However, what is important to note is that the petitioner withdrew the petition and filed a petition before this Court and suppressed that fact from this Court. Under similar circumstance the Apex Court in Union of India Ors. (supra) at paragraph seven the Apex Court observed that when the respondent had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi and that writ petition was subsequently withdrawn, this fact should have been clearly stated in the course of the petition filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Not disclosing this fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
