VIJENDER KUMAR JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Vijender Kumar fain has sought quashing of his detention order, dated December 17, 1991, passed under section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of, Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended), which is annexured as Annexure P1 to the petition. It has been challenged on various grounds. However a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent Union of India that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as according to the respondent no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, on the basis of which the detention Order, Annexure P1, has been passed.

(2.) IN order to invoke the jurisdiction of this court, it has been stated in the petition that the petitioner resides at Jalandhar. In proof of his residence, an affidavit, Annexure P2, and Rent Deed between Pawan Kumar landlord of House No NK-241, Charnjitpura, Jalandhar and the petitioner, dated November 1, 1991 have been filed. It has also been stated in the petition that the police had raided the residence of the petitioner thrice to arrest him.

(3.) AFTER going through the record of the case, I am unable to reach a conclusion that even a part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. No part of prejudicial activity has been mentioned which should be taken to have arisen in Punjab, Haryana at Chandigarh, that is, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested by the Customs Authority at Delhi under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) and the petitioner gave his address to the Customs Authority as resident of 1294, Gali Paharwali Dharampura, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. Not only that, the petitioner sought bail from Delhi Court which is proved by his own evidence attached as Annexures P4 and P7 with his petition. Even if it is proved that he has started residing at Jalandhar now, or that he is resident of Jalandhar, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court simply on the ground of residence, Manjit Singh Dhingra v. Union of India and others, ILR (1987)2 Punjab and Haryana 61 and Gurdeep Kaur v. The Union of India and others, 1990(2) Recent CR 20 can be referred to here with advantage. It has not been brought to my notice that even a part of cause of action a rose in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, on the basis of which the detention order has been passed. In my view thus, the preliminary objection taken by the Union of India is sustained and this petition is dismissed, as this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the detention order, dated December 17, 1991, Annexure P1.