Back
1998 Supreme(Raj) 369
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : V.S.KOKJE,P.P.NAOLEKAR,V.G.PALSHIKAR
UMED MAL - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
F. B. H. C. P. 2562 Of 1997
Decided On : 04/25/1998
J.P.JOSHI, K.L.JASMATIA, V.D.Kalla
The service of the detention order and taking of the detenue in custody in execution of such an order within the territories of the State of Rajasthan supply part of cause of action for challenging the detention order, giving the Rajasthan High Court territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Habeas Corpus Petition.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - HABEAS CORPUS - DETENTION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - PARTIAL CAUSE OF ACTION - SERVICE OF DETENTION ORDER AND TAKING OF DETENUE IN CUSTODY - HIGH COURT'S DISCRETION TO ENTERTAIN PETITION - INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 226(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the detention of his friend, Arvind Kumar Babel, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by filing a Habeas Corpus Petition. The detenue was taken into custody in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, but the detention order was passed by the Government of India in New Delhi. The respondents raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court to entertain the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Rajasthan High Court held that the service of the detention order and taking of the detenue in custody in execution of such an order within the territories of the State of Rajasthan shall supply part of cause of action for challenging the detention order. The Court further held that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rajasthan High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the detention of the detenue who was taken into custody in Rajasthan but the detention order was passed outside the State of Rajasthan? 2. Whether the service of the detention order and taking of the detenue in custody within the territories of the State of Rajasthan supply part of cause of action for challenging the detention order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which provides that the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which cause of action wholly or in part arises, shall exercise the power conferred by Clause (1) of Article 226 irrespective of whether the seat of Government or the Authority to which the writ is to be issued or residences of the persons claiming relief is situated within the territories of that High Court or not. 2. The Court held that the cause of action in a Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the detention of a person accrues not only when the detention order is passed but also when the detenue is taken into custody in execution of such an order. Therefore, the service of the detention order and taking of the detenue in custody within the territories of the State of Rajasthan supply part of cause of action for challenging the detention order.
Final Decision: The Rajasthan High Court held that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the detention of the detenue. The Court answered the reference accordingly and directed that the record be sent to the concerned Division Bench immediately.
V. S. KOKJE, J.
( 1 ) PETITIONER Umed Mal challenged his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), by filing this Habeas Corpus Petition which was listed before a Division Bench of this Court as per the rules.
( 2 ) ON November 27, 1997, the Division Bench hearing the matter passed an Order after hearing preliminary objections of the respondents as to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition. In that Order, the Division Bench took stock of the case law on the point but instead of deciding the question itself, expressed the view that the matter regarding the jurisdiction in such cases needs consideration by a larger Bench. The matter was therefore, directed to be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for Orders on constitution of a larger Bench and on February 04, 1998, Honble the Acting Chief Justice constituted this Full Bench to answer the reference.
( 3 ) THE factual setting in which the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the Habeas Corpus Petition arose as under :-
( 4 ) THE petitioner has brought this petition on behalf of his friend Arvind Kumar Babel, son of Shri Dharmesh K. Babel who has been detained under Section 3 (1) of the Act (he shall be referred to hereinafter as "detenue" ). The petitioner himself and the detenue claim to be permanent residents of Rajasthan and claim to be residing for the purpose of earning livelihood in Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner and the detenue were both in Jodhpur in the State of Rajasthan on June 24, 1997. One Shri R. R. Yadav, Sub-Inspector of Police, PCB, CID, Mumbai took the petitioner and the detenue to the Police Station City Police, Jodhpur and later took the detenue in his custody at Jodhpur. It is also alleged that the detenue was served with the detention Order on February 14, 1997 passed by the Joint Secretay to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau. (COFEPOSA UNIT), New Delhi. Grounds of detention and the list of documents were also served upon the detenue. The petitioner lost contact with the detenue thereafter but according to his information, the detenue was taken away from the State of Rajasthan to Pune in the State of Maharashtra.
( 5 ) IT is also alleged in the petition that as per the documents supplied to the detenue, the alleged incident, on the basis of which the detention Order was passed, took place on September 24, 1996 when one Shri Ranjan Raghunath Belekar was boarding a flight to Bangkok in suspicious circumstances. His baggage was checked and huge amount of foreign currency was recovered. As he could not explain properly the source of foreign currency found in his possession, he was taken into custody and was interrogated. It is alleged that said Shri Ranjan Raghunath Belekar disclosed that he had purchased the foreign currency from the detenue. On this the detenue was taken into custody and was allegedly compelled to execute certain documents by adopting third degree methods. The detenue was arrested and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai and was released on bail on June 30, 1997. The case is still pending in the Court. It is alleged that nothing further was done in the matter till the detention of the detenue at Jodhpur.
( 6 ) THE territorial jurisdiction for filing the petition at Jodhpur is claimed in the following words in the petition :"that because the detenue has lost his liberty within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honble Court and he was kept in illegal custody by virtue of illegal order issued by the respondent No. 2 and because of this illegal order, liberty of the detenue has been snatched away and as such, the petitioner is filing this writ petition before this Honble Court for quashing of the Order".
( 7 ) THE respondents h
