TAUFIK HAJI GAFFAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present petition amongst other reliefs has prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No. 2 to furnish to the petitioner the grounds of detention along with the documents referred to and relied upon by the detaining authority which passed the order of detention dated 14th August, 2001. The petitioner also prayed that the order of detention dated 14th August, 2001 be quashed and set aside and for interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c). Some preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition were raised on behalf of the respondents. In answer to that on behalf of the petitioner it is sought to be contended that this Court would have territorial jurisdiction considering that a substantial part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Apart from the address in the petition, our attention has been invited to the various other documents including the order passed against Tariq Haji Gaffar, brother of the petitioner, in which at Para 17 the premises of the petitioner herein are shown as "10, Badrudin Chambers, Near Sadanand Hotel, Sarang Street, Mumbai-400 003". Our attention is also invited to the documentary evidence placed on record from pages 84 onwards of the petition as also the notice dated 19th April, 2001 addressed to the petitioner by the Preventive Officer, that in accordance with the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana a notice is being served that he is to be arrested in Special Investigation & Intelligence Branch (EP) of New Custom House and that Courts in Mumbai will have jurisdiction over the matter. It is also pointed out that merely because the petition filed by the petitioner before the Gujarat High Court has been withdrawn would not bar the petitioner from maintaining the present petition before this Court. Reliance is placed for that purpose on various authorities. It is then contended that the averments in the petition by the petitioner that the grounds of detention are the same as were served on his brother whose order of detention has been set aside by the Gujarat High Court has not been controverted. In these circumstances it is contended that the Court should call upon the respondents to disclose to the Court the grounds to enable the Court to satisfy itself that the grounds are the same or similar. Learned Counsel has placed reliance in the order of the Apex Court dated October 31, 2001 in Criminal Appeal No. 1104/2001 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 2951 of 2001 in the case of Pawan Bhartiya vUnion of India & Anr . to point out that apart from what the Apex Court has set out in the case of Additional Secretary to Government of India & Ors. V/s. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia & Anr., 1992 Supp1 SCC 496 there is now an additional ground namely that if on similar grounds if the High Court has released or quashed order of detention of another detainee then in respect of the same grounds considering Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain and grant the relief as presently prayed for. It is lastly contended relying on paragraph eight of the judgment in the case of Union of India and Ors. V/s. Muneesh Suneja, 2001 AIR(SC) 854 that considering that the order of detention has not yet been given effect to in the event the petitioner makes a representation for revocation of the detention order the respondents be directed to consider the same and dispose it of considering the observations in the said judgment.

(2.) In the instant case at the admission stage itself we will have to also consider various other steps that were taken out by the petitioner in respect of the subject matter of the present petition and earlier when investigations had been initiated against the petitioner under the Customs Act. Our attention has been invited to Criminal Misc. Application taken out by the petitioner before the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 30th October, 2001. By that petition, the petitioner prayed for pre-arrest bail in case of his arrest in pursuance to the notice Annexure P-6. What is Annexure P-6 is set out in Para 15 of the said petition. It is a notice issued by the respondents under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act which was published in the Press dated 4th October, 2001. In Para 17 of the petition the petitioner has averred as under :-

(3.) The petitioner thereafter on 24th December, 2001 filed a petition before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad wherein the reliefs prayed for are the same or similar as prayed for in the present petition. That petition was disposed of as withdrawn by a learned Single Judge of that Court by order dated 26th December, 2001. The order does not disclose that leave of the Court was sought to maintain a fresh petition in respect of the subject matter of the said petition. The order has been produced. No such leave has been granted.