Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Arun Mahajan Versus State of Haryana and others

2017 (9) TMI 763 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Writ of habeas corpus - Detention order - Jurisdiction of Court to entertain the appeal - proceedings under COFEPOSA - Held that: - As per provisions of Article 226 of Constitution of India, there are two limitations placed on the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. Firstly, that the power is to be exercised 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction; and secondly, that the person or authority, to whom this Court is empowered to issue writ, must be within thos .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in that regard. Taking recourse to above provisions, the competent authority of Government of Maharashtra issued his detention order in exercise of power under Section 3 (1) of COFEPOSA Act. - No part of cause of action has accrued to petitioner within the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner, if wants to challenge the act of competent authority which passed the order of his detention, he could approach Bombay High Court for redressal of his grievance. The jurisdiction lies only with B .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a has sought to invoke jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for setting aside order of detention bearing no. PSA-1211/CR-21(2)/SPL3(A) dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA'). 2. Order passed agai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ome Department (Special) No. MIS-2009/CR-113/SPL-3(A) dated the 30th September 2009, am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Arun Mahajan (age 48 years) residing at C-1/210, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058, that with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling goods, it is necessary to make the following order: In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974), I hereby direct .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (Maharashtra Conditions of Detention) Order, 1974. Sd/- (Medha Gadgil) Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security) Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 and 3 i.e. State of Maharashtra has raised the issue of jurisdiction of this Court to issue any writ as sought by the petitioner. He has argued that detention order of petitioner was p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icial custody. He, thereafter, moved application for retracting from his statements dated 02.11.2010, 03.11.2010, 09.11.2010, 10.11.2010 and 16.11.2010 made by him to DRI officials {Annexure P-9 (colly)}. He was released on bail in that case vide order dated 14.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay (Annexure P-10). Thereafter, he had been appearing and dealing with Custom Authorities, Mumbai and moving applications. In his applications to competent authority, he questioned the proc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Maharashtra State, Mumbai approved proposal for detention of petitioner and several other persons. Reshma Arun Mahajan, wife of petitioner, filed representation on his behalf against proposal for his detention, which was addressed to Principal Secretary & Detaining Authority, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai (Annexure P-17). The petitioner also moved representation dated 18.11.2011 to Chief Secretary and Detaining Authority, Cofeposa, Mumbai (Annexure P-1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction of confiscation of goods, his detention order, seeking bail etc. 5. The petitioner has filed present petition in this Court seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus for setting aside order dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by competent authority of Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority on the ground that he is also residing at Sonipat and carrying out his business activities in Sonipat and other parts of Haryana, as such, order of detention is being sough .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t of cranes pertains to Mumbai Zonal Unit of DRI, which collected the entire evidence in the present matter at the Port in Mumbai. He was arrested in Mumbai and all the proceedings pertaining to his bail, release of the detained cranes etc. were initiated against him in the Court at Mumbai. The proposal for detention of petitioner was passed and sponsored by Screening Committee at Mumbai and the impugned detention order was passed by the detaining authority for the offence committed within the j .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ar place would not confer jurisdiction on the Court where he is residing or carrying out business. 7. When the petition was taken up for hearing the issue of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition was raised and arguments were addressed on this issue by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents, as such, I first take up the issue of jurisdiction and proceed to decide the same. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the detention order ag .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ers, CRWP No. 117 of 2014, decided on 27.03.2014, Joit Kumar Jain vs. State of Punjab and others, CRWP No. 248 of 2014, decided on 27.03.2014, Sat Pal Jain and another vs. Joint Secretary to the Government of India (Detaining Authority) and another, 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 607, D.N. Anand vs. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, 1993 (2) RCR (Criminal) 104, Trilok Nath Mittal vs. Union of India and others, 1994 (1) RCR (Criminal) 247, Mrs. Arvind Shergill vs. Union of India, 1994 (4) RCR (Crimin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

address of New Delhi does not confer any jurisdiction to the Court at New Delhi and the plea of petitioner that he also has his residence at Sonipat, does not vest any jurisdiction in this Court to entertain this petition. The remedy available to petitioner is at Maharashtra and he could approach the Court there. He has supported his contention with observations in cases of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh vs. Union of India, 1961 AIR (SC) 532, Bhagat Ram Sharma vs. Union of India and others, 1988 AIR (SC .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rrants of detention had not been executed even after the lapse of period of period of 7 ½ years of its issue and learned counsel for respondents had sought liberty to pass fresh order in this regard. On this ground the detention order was quashed. In that case the detention order was passed at Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat and the same was to be executed at Ludhiana and learned Single Judge had held that petition was maintainable in this Court and this Court has territorial jurisdiction over the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isdiction of High Courts to entertain petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India and it was held (majority view) as follows:- 13.......................What we have to see, therefore, is whether the words of Article 226 mean that the person or authority to whom a writ is to be issued has to be resident in or located within the territories of the High Court issuing the writ? The relevant words of Article 226 are these- Every High Court shall have power.............to issue to any person o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rritories because its order may affect persons living in those territories? Now it is clear that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Article 226 does not depend upon the residence or location of the person applying to it for relief; it depends only on the person or authority against whom a writ is sought being within those territories. It seems to us therefore that it is not permissible to read in Article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed in ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order may affect him in Bombay but the Calcutta High Court where the authority passing the order is located. It would, therefore, in our opinion be wrong to introduce in Article 226 the concept of the place where the order passed has effect in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court which can give relief under Art. 226............... 12. It was further observed in para 14 of the judgment as follows:- 14............................What Article 226 requires is residence or location a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4 SCR 738 that there is two-fold limitation on the power of the High Court to issue writs etc. Under Article 226, namely, (i) the power is to be exercised 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction', that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction, and (ii) the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be within those territories which clearly implies that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ondence, which has been placed on file by the petitioner, he has nowhere referred his address of Sonipat to the competent authority and his mere assertion that he is also resident of Sonipat is without basis. Even otherwise, service of notice at Sonipat does not confer jurisdiction to entertain such petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 14. A similar question arose before Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s Swaika Properties (supra), which find mention in para 1 of the judgment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of a notification dated February 8, 1984 issued by the State Government of Rajasthan under Section 52 (1) of the Act for the acquisition of certain lands belonging to them required by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur for a public purpose, namely, for implementation of a development scheme viz. Civil Lines Extension Scheme. 15. While answering to above question, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:- 7. Upon these facts, we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

titled to require the respondent to surrender or deliver possession of the lands acquired forthwith and upon their failure to do so, take immediate steps to secure such possession under sub-section (6) thereof. 8. The expression 'cause of action' is tersely defined in Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure: The 'cause of action' means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other wo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. As per provisions of Article 226 of Constitution of India, there are two limitations placed on the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. Firstly, that the power is to be exercised 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction; and secondly, that the person or authority, to whom this Court is empowered to issue writ, must be within those territories i.e. amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location. When the aforesaid tests are applied the safe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version