DHARAM PAL YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition the petitioner Dharampal Yadav challenges the validity of his detention in pursuance of the order dated 21-8-1991 passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act.

(2.) TO begin with it may be mentioned that learned Advocate General Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary raised a preliminary objection about the maintain ability of the writ petition here at Allahabad High Court on the ground that this was a matter which could have been filed and entertained only by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The basis of objection to entertainment of the habeas corpus petition was the fact that the petitioner has to be detained at District Jail Sultanpur. That the detention order against the petitioner stated the learned Advocate General contended that Sultanpur being situated within the jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench, and as a writ of habeas corpus has necessarily to go to the Jailor where the petitioner is confined, and that Jailor in this case being the Superintendant of the Sultan pur District Jail, the cause of action for the habeas corpus arose only against the order directing detention of the petitioner at Sultanpur, and hence the Lucknow Bench alone could issue a writ to the Superintendent of Sultanpur Jail.

(3.) THIS petition was moved on 19-9-1991 when the respondents were granted time to file affidavit. Number of supplementary affidavits, supple mentary counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Consequently, despite the fact that there was no formal order of admission of this petition, as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, we have heard this petition for its disposal on merits at the stage of admission itself.