RAMCHAND SANTUMAL BHATIA Vs. TARUN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short, but important question of jurisdiction in habeas corpus matters, arises in this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The Directorate of Intelligence Officers based at Calcutta acting on information on 9 April 1986 intercepted certain persons disembarking at Calcutta from a Thai Airways Plane being flight No. TG-313. One of the disembarkees was the petitioner's wife Smt. Durga Ramchand Bhatia. Being carried on her ticket were two pieces of registered baggage and a hand bag on her person. But there was something suspicious about her movements and therefore she was taken in for a personal search and interrogation. This search led to the recovery of gold in the form of biscuits of the value of Rs. 1,03,750/- from the lady's private parts. Detailed investigation showed that Smt. Durga was part of a syndicate of Bombay based ladies engaged in smuggling through the Calcutta and Madras Airports, though they left for foreign countries from the Bombay Airport. The detenu after arrest was put up before a Magistrate at Calcutta who directed her enlargement on bail. Being a resident of Ulhasnagar, District Thane, Maharashtra, she came to that place, after availment of bail. On 22 September 1986 respondent 1, a Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, passed an order of detention against the detenu under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), the order reciting that this was being done "with a view to prevent her from smuggling goods". The same, together with the grounds, were served upon the detenu on 11 November 1986 at Ulhasnagar. After this service the detenu was taken into custody and moved for detention at Presidency Jail, Calcutta, as directed in the order of detention. On 26 February 1987 leave was obtained to move the Court on the next day and on 27 February 1987 this Court directed the issue of rule nisi. As an interim measure, the Court directed that the detenu be transferred from the Presidency Jail, Calcutta, to a Jail at Kalyan. Impleaded to the petition are the detaining authority, the Union of India, and the Superintendent of Presidency Jail at Calcutta. The State of Maharashtra is also impleaded, though reasons for this joinder are not known.

(3.) Para 10 of the petition gives an explanation for the jurisdiction of this High Court to impugn the detention order in these words :