The Detaining Authority must consider all relevant factors, including the fact that the detenu is on bail, when making a detention order. The provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 cannot be enforced retrospectively.

S.D.Bajaj, J.

1. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 2358 of 1988 Shrimati Jasbir Kaur wife of detenu-Jasbir Singh Virdi has challenged the detention of her husband aforesaid under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, vide order Annexure P-1 based on grounds of detention Annexure P-2 with effect from 31.10.1988 on the grounds that the factum of detenu being already on interim bail with effect from 29.8.1988 was not adverted to by the Detaining Authority therein or even considered; that through the same order dated 29.8.1988 passport of the petitioners husband having been seized, the detenu could not indulge in prejudicial activities any further and as such there was no justifiable ground for making the order of prevention detention against him and that for the occurrence of September, 1987 provisions of the Act enforced on 4.7.1988 could not be invoked by the Detaining Authority retrospectively.

2. In reply it was asserted that cause of action having not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the criminal writ field by the detenus wife; that the factum of detenu being on interim anticipatory bail was duly considered by the detaining authority, that the Detaining Authority or its subjective satisfaction felt that in spite of it and the seizure of the detenus passport it was still necessary to order preventive detention of the detenu and that the order annexure P-1 was passed by the Detaining Authority on due application of mind. Hence, the writ merits dismissal.

3. The firm of Messrs. Vinod Metal Industries 761, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar, under whose name and style the petitioners husband, detenu Jasbir Singh Virdi, is alleged to have been through the deal with Messrs. Raja Ram New Fashions of United Kingdom is located at Jalandhar. Residential premises of the detenu bearing No. 296, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar were also searched by the Customs Authorities for the recovery of in criminating material against the detenu at Jalandhar. A part of the cause of action can, therefore, certainly be regarded to have arisen at Jalandhar; within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction has, therefore, no legs to stand upon and is consequently jurisdiction has, therefore, no legs to stand upon and is consequently overruled. Similar view of the same objection was taken by my learned brother Ujagar Singh, J., in Malook Singh alias Master v. Union of India and another, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1375 of 1988 decided on 12.12.1988. The reasoning set out therein for overruling identical objection would be treated as a part of this judgment for reaching the same conclusion.

4. A reference to the order of detention Annexure P-1 clearly establishes that the factum of the detenu having been enlarged on interim anticipatory bail with effect form 29.8.1988 was taken notice of or adverted to by the Detaining Authority therein. In similar circumstances in Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 137, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed :-

"The one contention strongly pressed before us by the petitioners counsel is that the Detaining Authority was not made aware at the time the detention order was made that the detenu had moved applications for bail in the three pending cases and that he was enlarged on bail on 13.1.1986, 14.1.1986 and 15.1.1986. We have gone through the detention order carefully. There is absolutely no mention in the order about the fact that the petitioner was an under trial prisoner, that he was arrested in connection with the three cases, that applications for bail were pending and that he was released on three successive days in the three cases. This indicates a total absence of application of mind on the part of Detaining Authority while p