M. J. Rao,c. J. (Oral)

( 1 ). THE detenu is detained in the State of Kerala. The detention order is passed by the State of Kerala. It is true that Section 9 declaration has been made by the Union of India in Delhi and it is also true that Section 11 representation has been rejected in Delhi. The position is that both the High Courts of Kerala and Delhi have jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. But the question is whether we should admit the writ petition here in Delhi and drive the State of Kerala to defend this case at Delhi. On this very question there is a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported as Mambram Valiyatu Kammu @ Kammu vs. Union of India and Others (1991 (1) Delhi Lawyer 161 (DB) wherein the Division Bench has given very good reasons as to why the petition should be returned to the petitioner for presentation in the High Court of Kerala. The Division bench Judgment also related to a detention by the State of Kerala and where a writ petition was sought to be filed in this Court. The observations of the learned Judges in the Head Note, as extracted below, are clear and we are in entire agreement with the said observations:-

"it is noted for a long time in this Court that writ petitions involving detention orders passed by various State governments are filed in this Court, adding to the already heavy burden of cases in this Court. From time to time other varieties of writ petitions are filed in bunch in this Court although the petitioners could have got the same relief in different High Courts in India. A few years back large number of writ petitions involving excise duty were filed in this Court, which could have been filed in different High Courts in India. In those cases interim reliefs were granted by this Court on furnishing bank guarantee. We do not want to create an impression on the litigant public that they can easily get a relief in this Court, which perhaps they may not get in other High Courts in India. Particularly, in habeas corpus writ petitions, where we have great anxiety to dispose of the petitions early, it is not possible to do so since the notices of longer duration are required to be issued to the State Governments. After the notices are received they engage a lawyer, who appears in this Court and seeks time to file the counter affidavit. For preparation of counter affidavit the officers of the State Government and the record is required to be brought to Delhi or the lawyer goes to the State capital. This results into loss of time in movement of officials and files. We have seen that some times it takes even four to five months for the hearing of habeas corpus writ petition after notice, for deciding whether rule nisi should be issued or not. Thus, apart from the inconvenience of movement of officers and records and avoidable expenses, where the detention orders are passed by the State Governments it is practically impossible to provide any early relief to habeas corpus detenus in this Court. In most of the detention matters the stock defences are delay in passing the detention order, non-furnishing of documents, non-furnishing of legible documents or non-furnishing the documents in the language known to the detenu. These grounds of detention can be more effectively and quickly disposed of in the respective High Courts in whose territorial jurisdiction the detention order has been passed. Even if the delay in the disposal of the representation by the Central Government is challenged, a relief against the same can be granted by respective High Courts and not by the Delhi High Court alone. . . . (Recent decisions of the Supreme Court in P. N. Kumar and Another vs. M. C. D. (1987- Vol.- SCC 609) and Kanubhai Brahmbhatt vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1987 SC 1159), have taken the procedural law of entertainment or writ jurisdictions to a far greater extent. The Supreme Court has held that the petitioners should first file the writ petitions in the High Court and should not rush to the Supre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document