RAJENDRA BISSANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impelled by the surge of an urge to avert preventive detention pursuant to order dated 3-5-1994 (Annexure R/1) passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department (Special) Government of Gujarat, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, in excercise of powers under Sub-section (i) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act') and on the strength of Government Order dated 14th Nov. 1990, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashment of the aforesaid order on the ground of its having been passed for wrong purpose.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a resident of Indore. On 20-2-1993, officers of Customs (Prevention) and officers of Customs and Central Excise, Indore raided the factory allegedly belonging to one Babulal Dhanraj Mohta situate- at village Delsor Dohad, District Panchmahal and recovered 90 silver bricks and 274 silver choreas packed in cloth bags, equipments for melting the-silver, in absence of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 17-6-1993 at Indore and admitted to bail by the High Court of Gujarat on 10-9-1993 in M. Cr. Case No. 3461/93 (Annexure 1). The criminal case has been filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Godhara. The linchpin of the case of the petitioner as contended is that the aforesaid Babulal Dhanraj Mohta, co-accused in the criminal case made statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. implicating the petitioner (Annexure 2). It seems that Babulal Mohta complaining of 3rd degree method, has lodged the criminal case No. 15/93 under Section 324 I.P.C. (Annexure P/7). The petitioner, before the Criminal Court, as noted above, has filed the application under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. seeking quashment of the proceedings against him right at the stage of infancy on the grounds stated therein (Annex. 8). The show cause notice issued by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure 10) has been replied by the petitioner (Annexure 11). The petitioner contends that Respondent No. 5 has passed the order of detention on 3-5-1994 (Annex. R/1) for wrongful purpose without any allegation much less credible to show such necessity between the period 10-9-1993 (Order of bail (Annexure-I) and 3-5-1994 (An order of detention (Annexure R/1) i.e. the gap of 8 months. Contending and categorising this order (Annexure R/1) as having been passed for wrong purpose in view of this material fact, the petitioner seeks to safeguard his liberty and quashment of the aforesaid order. On 13-5-1994, show cause notice against admission, and interim relief was directed to be issued by this court. In oppugnation, Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed preliminary objection contending that it was desirable that "such matters be normally left to the High Court having the territorial jurisdiction" and respondents No. 4 and 5 in separate reply have also preferred preliminary objections contending that no part of cause of action has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as such the petition in this Court is not tenable. The right to submit additional reply on merits is reserved if this Court overruled objection about absence of jurisdiction.

(3.) I have heard both the sides.