The doctrine of forum conveniens allows a court to decline jurisdiction even when a part of the cause of action arises in its territory, focusing on the convenience of all parties involved.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India , for a writ of Certiorari to quash the Detention Order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2, Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of finance, Government of India, as well as the Memorandum dated 24.09.2025 and subsequent Memorandum dated 15.10.2025, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the representations of the petitioner were rejected and for writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondent authorities to produce him from their custody at Central Jail,Jaipur, Rajasthan and set him at liberty.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, a resident of West Bengal, was arrested in the year 2024 in connection with three separate criminal cases, one being registered at Narcotics Control Bureau, Kolkata Zonal Unit, second at Police Station Gaighata, Parganas, West Bengal, and third at Police Station Bhadreswar, West Bengal, under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1988. During the pendency of said criminal cases, in order to prevent the petitioner from indulging into further criminal activities and illicit trafficking of contrabands, proceedings were initiated by respondent No. 3, Narcotics Control Bureau, Kolkata, under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1988 (“PITNDPS”). The same culminated in the issuance of impugned Detention Order dated 20.03.2025 by respondent No. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner and his family is resident of Parganas, West Bengal and the authority, respondent No. 3, who took the cognizance and has records of the criminal cases, being the root cause of the matter, is also situated at West Bengal.

3. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was taken into preventive custody and detained at Central Jail, Jaipur, Rajasthan, wherein he was served with the grounds of detention and other relevant documents. Subsequent thereto, his case was referred to State Advisory Board (PITNDPS), Rajasthan, which by its report dated 01.09.2025, found sufficient cause for detention, whereupon the Central Government confirmed the detention for a period of one year from 25.06.2025.

4. His representations, in furtherance thereof, were rejected by impugned Memorandum dated 24.09.2025 and Memorandum dated 15.10.2025, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

5. At the outset, a preliminary objection, as to the maintainability of the present petition, was raised by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned Detention Order was passed in furtherance of all the offences committed by the petitioner in the territorial jurisdiction of West Bengal. Moreover, the order was executed in Kolkata, West Bengal and the petitioner was detained at Jaipur, Rajasthan, where the grounds of detention were served upon him.

6. He submitted that merely because the Central Government is situated at Delhi, and for the said reason the impugned Order and the Memoranda were passed in Delhi, this Court is not the appropriate forum to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . Furthermore, applying the doctrine of Forum Conveniens, the petition ought to have been filed at High Court of Calcutta, within whose jurisdiction all the cases against the petitioner are pending or at High Court of Rajasthan, where the petitioner is detained. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance onKusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and Another, 2004 6 SCC 254 .

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently opposing the said objec