AVINASH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made for quashing the detention order dated 3-7-1996 as well as the grounds of detention dated 3-7-1996 issued to Hardip Singh under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short hereinafter called "COFEPOSA Act") by the Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) and Detaining Authority.

(2.) The factual position as disclosed in the petition is that the detenu Hardip Singh was taken into custody at the Sahar International Airport, Mumbai on 13-9-1995. The detenu is a constable in the police (under suspension) and is a permanent resident of Sunis, Police Station Batala, District Gurdaspur (Punjab). The detenu approached the learned Sessions Judge at Bombay for bail which was granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge on 16-9-1995. However, he was detained by an order of detention dated 3-7-1996 issued under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act by respondent No. 3. The order was issued with a view to prevent the detenu from smuggling goods. The grounds of detention dated 3-7-1996 were served upon the detenu on 22-8-1996.

(3.) The detention order and the grounds of detention have been assailed on various grounds but they are not necessary to mention at this stage as in the written reply filed to the petition the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra have raised a preliminary objection that High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to entertain and hear this petition, as the order of detention has been issued by the Officer specially empowered by the State of Maharashtra at Mumbai which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Though the detenu is a permanent resident of Punjab, the order of detention was executed by the Batala police on the request of the State of Maharashtra. The prejudicial activities in which the detenu is involved took place in Mumbai, and he has been detained in respect of prejudicial activities in the State of Maharashtra. The detenu was also arrested at Mumbai and was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai and the application for bail was also moved by the detenu before the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai and further application for reduction of bail amount was moved by the detenu before the Bombay High Court at Mumbai and order was also obtained from the High Court, Mumbai for the same. The entire cause of action, according to the respondents, therefore, arose within the State of Maharashtra and, thus, Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has got no jurisdiction to entertain this Crl. Writ Petition.