MANJULABEN Vs. CTA PILLAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . In these two petitions what is challenged are the two orders of detention of the two detenus who are detained at the Central Jail Jaipur under the orders of detention passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act). There is no dispute that both the detenus were at first detained at Baroda under the orders of detention passed under the provisions of the Maintenance of internal Security Act 1971 as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance 1974 The detenus were first lodged in the Baroda Prison but later removed to the Central Jail at Jaipur where fresh orders of detention under the impugned Act were served on there. In these writ petitions the petitioners who are the relatives of the detenus seek to challenge constitutionality and legal validity of the impugned Act and the orders of detention dated September 19 1974 the continuance of emergency declared by the President on December 3 1971 under Article 36 of the Constitution of India and the Presidential Order dated December 25 1974 The facts averred in the Petitions disclose that both the detenus have their place of residence within the State of Gujarat and also carry on their business within the State of Gujarat. They have their families who reside in the State of Gujarat. It is alleged in the petitions that the detenus are entitled to come back to the State of Gujarat for the purposes of residence as well as to carry on their business and they also desire to come back to the State and to reside with their families in the area within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is the case of the petitioners that by the impugned order of detention of the detenus have been deprived of their right to move freely throughout the territory of India and specially within the territory of the State of Gujarat and to reside and to carry on their business therein. A part of cause of action therefore has thus arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions under Article 226(1A) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The Additional Collector of Customs Ahmedabad has filed the affidavit in this case on behalf of the respondents stating that the detenus were judged in the Central Prison Jaipur in pursuance of the orders passed under the provisions of Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971 as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance 1974 and in the Jail Register entries in respect have been made. The orders of detention passed under the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance 1974 came to an end as the Ordinance bad been repealed by the impugned Act which came into force from December 19 1974 at Jaipur. After the release the detenus were again served with fresh detection order dated December 19 1974 passed under sec. 3(1) of the impugned Act. The orders of detention were served on the detenus near the gate of the Central Prison Jaipur and the detenus were admitted in the Jail in pursuance of the detention orders dated December 19 1974 and this fact is proved by the entries in the jail register. The contention of the respondent is that the orders of detention of the detenus dated December 19 1974 which are challenged in these petitions are signed by the Joint Secretary Government of India Ministry of Finance New Delhi at New Delhi the orders of detention were served on the detenus near the gate of the Central Prison Jaipur and under the circumstances no part of cause of action has arisen within the Jurisdiction of the Gujarat State and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain these petitions.

(3.) Even though the challenge in the writ petitions is very wide the hearing of these writ petitions is restricted as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petitions under Article 226(1A) of the Constitution and this is the only point which we are required to determine at this stage. The other challenges in respect of the constitutionality of the Act or continuance of emergency or the Presidential order or the emergency declared by the President are reserved and are to be argued along with other writ applications wherein similar points are taken.