TMI Blog1975 (3) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974, The detenus were first lodged in the Baroda Prison but later removed to the Central Jail at Jaipur, where fresh orders of detention under the impugned Act were served on them. In these writ petitions the petitioners who are the relatives of the detenus seek to challenge constitutionality and legal validity of the impugned Act and the orders of detention dated September 19, 1974, the continuance of emergency declared by the President on December 3, 1971 under Article 352 of the Constitution of India and the Presidential Order dated December 25, 1974. The facts averred in the petitions disclose that both the detenus have their place of residence within the State of Gujarat and also carry on their business wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me into force from December 19, 1974. The detenus were released on December 19, 1974 at Jaipur. After the release the detenus were again served with fresh detention orders dated December 19, 1974 passed under Section 3(1) of the impugned Act. The orders of detention were served on the detenus near the gate of the Central Prison, Jaipur and the detenus were admitted in the Jail in pursuance of the detention orders dated December 19, 1974 and this fact is proved by the entries in the jail register. The contention of the respondent is that the orders of detention of the detenus dated December 19, 1974 which are challenged in these petitions are signed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi at New Delhi, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. This clause was added by Section 8 of the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. Therefore, in order to determine whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions what is to be seen is whether the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction to entertain the writ petitions under Article 226(1A) of the Constitution. Now Article 358 provides that while a proclamation of emergency is in operation, nothing in Article 19 shall restrict the power of the State as defined in Part III to make any law or to take any executive action which the State would but for the provisions contained in that Part be competent to make or to take, but any law so made shall, to the extent of the incompetency, cease to have effect as soon as the Proclamation ceases to operate, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the law so ceases to have effect. The provisions of Article 19 can be referred to for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir detention continued and they were served with fresh orders of detention under the impugned Act when they were not set at liberty. The detenus were first detained at Baroda under the orders of the detention passed under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. Thus the initial detention of the detenus which was at Baroda continued under the fresh orders of detention issued under the provisions of the impugned Act. The place of initial arrest which was at Baroda, it was argued, thus provides a part of cause of action and that being so fl part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. It if also contended that the impugned orders of detention constitute an interference with all the rights guaranteed by Article 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jail register have been made to show that the detenus were taken afresh in the jail after service of fresh orders of detention under the impugned Act but that is not of much consequence in view of the fact that the detenus were not in fact set at liberty at any time before the fresh orders of detention were served on them. The detenus were not free agents when they were served with the fresh orders of detention under the impugned Act. In fact the detenus were not at all released after the expiry of the orders of their detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, but they were continued in detention. As initial detention of detenus which was at Baroda is continued, the same furnishes a part of cause of action to the detenus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
