Back
1997 Supreme(P&H) 990
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.K.Srivastava, J.
Rajinder Nanda
Versus
Union Of India
Crl. W.P. No. 1258 of 1996,
Decided On : JULY 2, 1997
The High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging a detention order if the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction.
Headnote:
COFEPOSA Act - Detention Order - Pre-Execution Stage Challenge - Maintainability - Territorial Jurisdiction - Scope of Judicial Review - Grounds for Challenge - Wrong Purpose - Delay in Implementation and Service of Order - Sufficiency of Material - Appellate Authority's Function.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a resident of Haryana, challenged the detention order passed against him under COFEPOSA Act, 1974, at the pre-execution stage. The detention was based on allegations of smuggling and illegal import of LCD modules. The petitioner contended that the order was passed for a wrong purpose and that there was an unexplained delay in its implementation and service.
Finding of the Court:
1. The High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction. 2. The Court noted that the settled position of law is that at the pre-execution stage, the Court will normally not interfere with the detention order unless certain limited grounds are satisfied, such as the order being passed for a wrong purpose or without authority. 3. The Court found that the petitioner had failed to show that the impugned order was passed for a wrong purpose. 4. The Court also held that the delay in implementing and serving the detention order was properly explained by the respondents and did not render the order invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition challenging the detention order. 2. Whether the petitioner could challenge the detention order at the pre-execution stage and on what grounds. 3. Whether the impugned order was passed for a wrong purpose. 4. Whether the delay in implementing and serving the detention order rendered it invalid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction. 2. The Court reiterated the settled position of law that at the pre-execution stage, the Court will normally not interfere with the detention order unless certain limited grounds are satisfied, such as the order being passed for a wrong purpose or without authority. 3. The Court found that the petitioner had failed to show that the impugned order was passed for a wrong purpose. 4. The Court also held that the delay in implementing and serving the detention order was properly explained by the respondents and did not render the order invalid.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the detention order was dismissed.
K.K.Srivastava, J.
1. The petitioner, Rajinder Nanda, a resident of New Mandi, Mandi Adampur, District Hissar, in the State of Haryana, has filed this Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the quashing of order of his detention passed by respondent No. 2 (Shri Mahendra Prasad Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi), (in short to be referred as the "DRI) under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
A search of the shop No. 138, Lajpat Rai Market, New Delhi as well as residential premises situated at first floor of E-133, Masjid Moth Greater Kailash-III, New Delhi, belonging to one Madan Lal Girdhar was conducted on 30-8-1993 by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zone Unit, New Delhi, which yielded in the recovery of 8000 pieces of LCD Modules (Watch Parts) from the aforesaid shop and 1,90,000 pieces of LCD Modules, all of foreign origin, which were recovered from the residential premises of said Madan Lal Girdhar. At the time of raid, Madan Lal Girdhar was not present at his residential premises as well as his shop. No documents regarding the valid and legal import/possession of the said goods could be produced before the raiding authority. The aforesaid LCD Modules of foreign make were seized under the Customs Act. One Maruti car bearing registration No. DL-2 CE-1143 was also seized under the said Act. As per allegations of the respondents, these modules were smuggled and the said Maruti car was used for transportation of the smuggled goods. An enquiry was conducted regarding the said LCD modules and it was found that the consignment was imported vide AIR Way Bill No. 160/83260030 in the name of M/s Modern Time Industries, E- 137, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan and was duly cleared by Bombay Customs under Bill of Entry No. 8310 dated 24.8.93 on the basis of a declaration given by the importer that the said goods had been imported under Other Than Negative List (OGL). The search in the factory premises was made on 3.9.1993 and it was found to be belonging to one Harbhagwan Wadhwa, resident of D-58, Amar Colony, New Delhi. His residential premises were also searched on 3.9.93 and 25.1.1994. The search, however, did not yield recovery of any incriminating article/document. It is alleged that the residential premises of various other persons, like Madan Lal Arora, Basant Aggarwal, Vinod Aggarwal were also searched on 27.1.94, but nothing incriminating was found.
3. It has been mentioned in the petition that the investigations were undertaken, summons were issued to a number of persons, whose statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It was during these investigations that petitioner/Rajinder Nanda was mentioned and alleged to be engaged in the business of watches. The allegations made against him were that he was a tenant of the premises of Harbhagwan Wadhwa during the year 1984-85. Statements of some employees of Harbhagwan Wadhwa showed that the petitioner used to visit the business premises and that those statements were made against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the goods were found to be legally and lawfully imported on payment of the due customs duty, without availing any benefit from the Small Scale Industries under the present liberalised policy of the Central Government. Therefore, no question for commission of any criminal offence/economic offences arose. It was further mentioned that the goods, i.e. LCD modules did not fall under the negative list of imports under the existing import policy 1992-97. These goods, as a matter of fact have been kept in transit with Madan Lal Girdhar from where the DRI(DZU) officers had wrongly and illegally seized the same. It was alleged by the respondents that there was under-valuing of the import of the modules. The value of the goods was in Hongkong Dollar 0.35,
