Back
1997 Supreme(P&H) 1233
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
H.S.Brar, J.
Avinash Kumar Sharma
Versus
Union Of India
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1779 of 1996,
Decided On : AUGUST 12, 1997
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana does not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging a detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, where the order was passed in Maharashtra, the prejudicial activities of the detenu were related to Maharashtra, the detention order and grounds of detention were served in Maharashtra, and the detenu was arrested and detained in Maharashtra.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - COFEPOSA ACT - SECTION 3(1) - DETENTION ORDER - SERVICE OF DETENTION ORDER - CAUSE OF ACTION - HIGH COURT JURISDICTION: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana does not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging a detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, where the order was passed in Maharashtra, the prejudicial activities of the detenu were related to Maharashtra, the detention order and grounds of detention were served in Maharashtra, and the detenu was arrested and detained in Maharashtra.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in the police (under suspension) and a permanent resident of Punjab, was taken into custody at the Sahar International Airport, Mumbai, on 13-9-1995, for alleged involvement in smuggling activities. He was granted bail by the Sessions Judge at Bombay on 16-9-1995. On 3-7-1996, he was detained under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act by the Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) and Detaining Authority. The detention order and grounds of detention were served upon the detenu on 22-8-1996. The detenu challenged the detention order in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, arguing that the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the detenu was arrested in Punjab, and part of the cause of action arose in Punjab.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The Court found that the detention order was passed in Maharashtra, the prejudicial activities of the detenu were related to Maharashtra, the detention order and grounds of detention were served in Maharashtra, and the detenu was arrested and detained in Maharashtra. The Court held that no cause of action, even in part, arose within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging a detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, where the order was passed in Maharashtra, the prejudicial activities of the detenu were related to Maharashtra, the detention order and grounds of detention were served in Maharashtra, and the detenu was arrested and detained in Maharashtra.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition because no cause of action, even in part, arose within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Court relied on the following principles: * The place of service of a detention order is relevant in determining the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a petition challenging the order. * In cases involving detention under the COFEPOSA Act, the cause of action arises when the detenu is taken into custody to serve out the period of detention. * The High Court of Punjab and Haryana does not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging a detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, where the order was passed in Maharashtra, the prejudicial activities of the detenu were related to Maharashtra, the detention order and grounds of detention were served in Maharashtra, and the detenu was arrested and detained in Maharashtra.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed on the ground that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
1. In this Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made for quashing the detention order dated 3-7-1996 as well as the grounds of detention dated 3-7-1996 issued to Hardip Singh under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short hereinafter called "COFEPOSA Act") by the Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) and Detaining Authority.
2. The factual position as disclosed in the petition is that the detenu Hardip Singh was taken into custody at the Sahar International Airport, Mumbai on 13-9-1995. The detenu is a constable in the police (under suspension) and is a permanent resident of Sunis, Police Station Batala, District Gurdaspur (Punjab). The detenu approached the learned Sessions Judge at Bombay for bail which was granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge on 16-9-1995. However, he was detained by an order of detention dated 3-7-1996 issued under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act by respondent No. 3. The order was issued with a view to prevent the detenu from smuggling goods. The grounds of detention dated 3-7-1996 were served upon the detenu on 22-8-1996.
3. The detention order and the grounds of detention have been assailed on various grounds but they are not necessary to mention at this stage as in the written reply filed to the petition the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra have raised a preliminary objection that High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to entertain and hear this petition, as the order of detention has been issued by the Officer specially empowered by the State of Maharashtra at Mumbai which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Though the detenu is a permanent resident of Punjab, the order of detention was executed by the Batala police on the request of the State of Maharashtra. The prejudicial activities in which the detenu is involved took place in Mumbai, and he has been detained in respect of prejudicial activities in the State of Maharashtra. The detenu was also arrested at Mumbai and was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai and the application for bail was also moved by the detenu before the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai and further application for reduction of bail amount was moved by the detenu before the Bombay High Court at Mumbai and order was also obtained from the High Court, Mumbai for the same. The entire cause of action, according to the respondents, therefore, arose within the State of Maharashtra and, thus, Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has got no jurisdiction to entertain this Crl. Writ Petition.
4. So this preliminary objection about the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain this petition is going to be decided first.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has got jurisdiction to entertain and decide this petition as in consequence to the detention order, the detenu was arrested by the Punjab Police though at the direction of the State of Maharashtra and, the part of cause of action arose in Punjab, and thus, this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be filed in Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. He has cited the following authorities to substantiate his argument.
7. The first one is the single Bench Judgment of this Court (H. K. Sandhu, J.) in Tirlok Nath Mittal V/s. Union of India, 1994 (1) All Cri LR 546. In that case though the detention order was not passed in Punjab and the prejudicial activities of the detenu also did not relate to the State of Punjab but the respondent-State in that case had been sending summons to the petitioner at his Ludhiana address. On that
