TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies Act, 1974 (No. 52 of 1974) State Government hereby direct that the said Shri Prasanto Kumar Sarkar be detained; Shri Prasanto Kumar Sarkar shall be detained in Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur and shall be kept in Class III. 2. The principal contentions of Mr. Ghosh, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the application are two fold, although several grounds have been raised in this writ application. 3. The learned counsel firstly submits that having regard to the order of detention, the ground and the stand taken by the concerned respondents in their affidavit-in-op-position, it would appear that separate and distinct stand having been raised therein the same must be held to be suffering from total non-application of mind on their part. According to the learned counsel, whereas Sub-sections (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act had been referred to in the order of detention, it would appear from the ground served on the detenu on 16-3-2000 that therein it has been stated : From the above it is evident that Prashanto Sarkar alias Prashanto Kumar Sarkar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly notices statements and seizure lists. As a matter of facts all the documents could not be translated in Bengali version. According to Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974, the order and the grounds of detention should be in language which the detenu understands and the grounds bear some sorts of certificate to show the grounds have been explained to the detenu in the language which he understands. 7. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the aforementioned contention, inter alia, has relied upon a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jamad Ali Mondal v. Union of India reported in. 8. Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, has raised a preliminary objection with regards to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel submits that having regard to the fact that the order of detention has been passed by the State of Bihar, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this application. It is also submitted that it cannot be said that the detenu did not know English, inasmuch as, from the receipt of the grounds of detention it appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that the detenu is still detained at Siliguri Jail which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is not in dispute. The only question, which, would, therefore, be relevant for the purpose of consideration as to whether his continuous detention in Siliguri Jail from 22-3-2000 on which date the impugned order of detention was served on him constitutes a part of cause of action or not. The relevant law in this regard may now be considered. 13. In Mussummat Chand Kour v. Pratap Singh (1888) 15 Ind App 156 it was held- the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. 14. The Supreme Court in Oil Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994)4SCC711 held that the question as to whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, must be arrived at on the basis of averments made in the petition, the truth or ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction as important correspondences were made from Calcutta and Communication of revocation of mining lease was also made at Calcutta and thus this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition . 21. Reference in this connection may be made to a recent decision of this Court in People's Union v. Union of India reported in AIR1996Cal89 . 22. In P. Subramani v. State of Karnataka reported in 1990 Cri LJ 1106 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court distinguished the Swaika Properties case [1985]3SCR598 (supra) in a case under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act stating- the ratio cannot be imported to a case of detention which is quite different. In this case, not only the order was served upon the detenu in Salem in Tamil Nadu. His liberty was deprived in the same place and the grounds of detention was also served on him at the same place. Therefore, the essential act of detention physically happened in Tamil Nadu as far as the petitioner is concerned and, therefore, a considerable part of the cause of action took place in the State of Tamil Nadu, conferring jurisdiction upon this Court . 23. Yet again in Smt. Manjula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring persons engaged in smuggled goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such persons be detained. 26. However, in paragraph 12 of the grounds of detention, it has been alleged that the said order of detention had been issued with a view to preventing the detenu from indulging in activities which are prejudicial to public order and interest - Maintenance of public order and interest is not one of the grounds which can be invoked for the purpose of passing an order of preventive detention under the said Act. Yet again in the affidavit-in-opposition the first respondent herein, as noticed earlier, stated in paragraph 8(ii) that the said order has been passed under Section 3(1) to prevent the detenu from further indulging in smuggling activities which are prejudicial to the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange which evidently does not come under Sub-section (i) of Section 3 of the Act. The prevarication of the stand taken by the first respondent herein at different stages clearly goes to show total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 27. In the case of Anup Kumar Ghosh v. Unio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing regard to the said fact all the documents were supplied to him in Bengali version as would appear from the statements made in the affidavit in-opposition as also the grounds served upon the detenu. It is evident that the grounds which 'were in Hindi version were read over and explained to him. It, therefore, does not lie in the mouth of the first respondent herein to contend that as the detenu knew English, he was not prejudiced by non-supply of some documents in Bengali version. 30. The approach of the first respondent in this connection appears to be that as the detenu had not asked for the Bengali version of the documents, it was not necessary for it to supply the same. Another stand taken on behalf of the respondent is that the documents, Bengali version whereof had not been supplied, were known to the detenu being notices etc. The aforementioned stand taken by the first respondent herein, in our opinion, does not subserve the requirements of law. 31. In the case of Jamat Ali Mondal v. Union of India, reported in (2000) 2 CLT 563, a Division Bench of this Court upon taking into consideration a large number of decisions categorically held that the constitutional re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
