TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus be issued for setting aside order of detention bearing F. No. SBIII/PSA/ 1102/02 dated 5.3.2004 passed against him by the Detaining Authority -cum- Principal Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar (respondent no.3) under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974 (for short, `the Act') as the same is illegal, unconstitutional and is based on extraneous, irrelevant and vague grounds, apart from being vitiated on account of inordinate and fatal delay in its issuance as well as non-service thereof. Brief facts:- In the year 2000, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad (hereinafter described as `the D.R.I.') started investigations into duty evasion by various 100% Export-Oriented Units (EOUs) by indulging in clandestine removal of duty free imported and indigenous raw materials without payment of duty. These EOUs were under an obligation to manufacture finished products and export/ deemed export the same as per provisions of the Exim Policy and Handbook ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the purpose of preventing the petitioner from indulging in smuggling activities. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was asked to appear before the authority concerned. Representations for revocation of that order submitted on behalf of the petitioner, his relatives and friends were rejected. Apprehending the execution of the order of detention, the petitioner has filed the present petition alleging that the same is beyond the scope of Section 3(1) of the Act; that it has been passed belatedly and that it is not based on relevant considerations. Reply on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 has been filed by way of affidavit of Shri Jatinder Singh Khaira, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective), Ludhiana. It has been averred that the present petition is not maintainable qua the answering respondents as the detention order has been passed by respondent no.3 at Gandhinagar, Gujarat. Moreover, the detention order is at the pre-execution stage and without service thereof, a writ petition is not maintainable. However, it has been admitted that the petitioner is a resident of Ludhiana and State of Punjab. In their written statement, respondent nos. 2 and 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of warrants of arrest under the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974). An analysis of the above extracted provision of law shows that an order can be executed at any place within the country and that Sections 72 to 81 of the Cr.P.C. are attracted for that purpose. Admittedly, the order of detention is shown to have been passed at Gandhinagar (Gujarat). However, the petitioner has come up with a plea that it is being sought to be executed at Ludhiana, where he is residing. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 have, in their reply, stated that the petitioner is a resident of Ludhiana in the State of Punjab. In view of the above, the order of detention, if upheld, will be sought to be executed within the jurisdiction of this Court. In D.N.Anand Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance, 1993(2) R.C.R.(Crl.) 104, this Court observed as under:- Some effort was made by the learned counsel for the Union of India that the petitioner was a resident of Delhi and not of Ambala as claimed by him and as such no cause of action arose to him within the jurisdiction of this Court. A reference to the pleadings in paras 7 of the return will show that summons were sent to the petitioner a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Mere residence of a person at a particular place perhaps may not furnish a cause of action but if the alleged detenu or his close relations has the apprehension that the order of detention is likely to be served upon him for the purpose of execution, certainly, the court in whose jurisdiction this order is to be executed will have the jurisdiction. It is the case of the U.O.I. itself that they raided the house of the husband of the petitioner at Jalandhar and Chandigarh, therefore, this court will have the jurisdiction to entertain this petition. The case law relied upon by the counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts in hand. In Manjit Singh Dhingra's case (supra), the detention order was passed by the State Government. The said order was going to be served within the jurisdiction of another State. In that light, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave the following findings:- `The High Court should be slow to assume jurisdiction over the matter on which a sister court can with more efficacy, promptitude and exactitude hold an enquiry and grant relief. It would, therefore, be the High Court in the St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of Article 22 thereof nor the Act in question places any restriction on the powers of the High Court and this Court to review judicially the order of detention. The powers under Articles 226 and 32 are wide, and are untrammelled by any external restrictions, and can reach any executive order resulting in civil or criminal consequences. However, the courts have over the years evolved certain selfrestraints for exercising these powers. They have done so in the interests of the administration of justice and for better and more efficient and informed exercise of the said powers. These selfimposed restraints are not confined to the review of the orders passed under detention law only. They extent to the orders passed and decisions made under all laws. It is in pursuance of this self-evolved judicial policy and in conformity with the self-imposed internal restrictions that the courts insist that the aggrieved person first allow the due operation and implementation of the concerned law and exhaust the remedies provided by it before approaching the High Court and this Court to invoke their discretionary extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 respectively. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y kindly be allowed and the order of detention bearing F.No.SBIII/PSA/1102/02 dated 05.03.2004 passed by respondent no.3, Detaining Authority -cum- Principal Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974 against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside, as the order so passed is illegal, unconstitutional and based on extraneous, irrelevant and vague grounds. It is further prayed that any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. It is still further prayed that during the pendency of the petition in this Hon'ble Court, execution of the impugned detention order may kindly be stayed in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. The petitioner has not placed on record order dated 5.3.2004, the quashing of which he ha sprayed for. The only reference to this order finds mention in Annexure P16 which is an order passed by the competent authority while apparently exercising its powers under Section 7 of the Act, which reads as under:- 7. Powers in relation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
