Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1096 - HC - CustomsWrit of habeas corpus - Detention order - Jurisdiction of Court to entertain the appeal - proceedings under COFEPOSA - detenu was absconding and evading detention - Held that - Since the detention order stands executed as of now, there cannot, therefore, exit any bar in considering the merits of the grounds of challenge urged by the detenu. The final consideration of the grounds urged is only after execution of the detention order as prayed by the Detaining Authority. The respondents could not show any binding precedent where the Courts have refused to consider the challenge of a detenu in a habeas corpus petition after execution of the detention order, merely because challenge was unsuccessful at pre- execution stage. Even otherwise, the main ground of absolute casualness even after judgement dated 16.7.2013 was not raised earlier by the detenu. This Court cannot permit the Authorities to take shelter under such technical pleas in a writ petition filed challenging preventive detention order. Territorial jurisdiction - Held that: - merely because respondents No.5 & 6 have doubts on the bona fides of the petitioner in taking a leased residential premises within the jurisdiction of this Court, it cannot be held that no part of cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of this Court to consider the challenge to the detention order even after its execution in the jurisdiction of this Court. Although certain judgements were cited by the respondents, however, they could not show any precedent where jurisdiction was held as lacking despite such part of cause of action arising in the jurisdiction of the High Court. Moreover, there is a long line of decisions rendered by various High Courts substantiating that these facts would constitute part of cause of action that has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court - the detenu is still detained in Siliguri Special Jail which is within the jurisdiction of this Court and in the event the said detention is held to be illegal, a writ of habeas corpus may have to be issued; pursuant whereto, the detenu may be released, we are of the opinion, that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and as such the writ application is maintainable. The Detaining Authority was in fact granted ample opportunity and it could have filed a proper affidavit in a responsible manner dealing with the case on merits as well. However, the Detaining Authority chose not to file any proper affidavit dealing in details with the merits of the case - the prayer for quashing of the impugned detention order No.PSA1200/85/SPL3(A) dated 12.3.2001, executed upon the detenu Nitesh Ashok Sadarangani is allowed - appeal allowed.
|