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 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document