MADAN LAL GIRDHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner, Madan Lal Girdhar, is seeking a writ, order or direction, for quashing of detention order dated 4.2.1994 (Annexure- 10) passed by Joint Secretary to the Government of India. Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) New Delhi, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1947 (in short, the Act).

(2.) THE petition has been filed at the pre-detention stage.

(3.) ON 19.4.1994, this petition came up for hearing before V.K. Bali, J. and on a prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, arrest of the petitioner was stayed subject to his giving an undertaking to the satisfaction of arresting officer that he will not leave the place of his residence. The interim order continues still date. After notice of the petition, Sh. Mahendra Parshad, Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, has filed written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. In the written statement, a preliminary objection has been taken with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Respondents have stated that the petitioner has misled the Court by giving false address of Palwal. In fact, petitioner is resident of E-133, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-3, New Delhi. Further, it has been stated that the offence was committed at Delhi in the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court, and also that the petitioner had filed a petition in the Calcutta High Court, which fact petitioner has not disclosed in this petition. Mr. H.L. Sibal and Mr. H.S. Mattewal, Senior Advocates, Counsel for the petitioner, have contended that the order of detention is liable to be quashed on the short ground that the main person namely Har Bhagwan Wadhwa son of Uttam Chand against whom order of detention was passed, has been ordered to be released by the Advisory Board. In answer to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. D.D. Sharma standing counsel for the Union of India (respondents) has contended that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.