- (1.) BY this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition the petitioner Dharampal Yadav challenges the validity of his detention in pursuance of the order dated 21-8-1991 passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act.
(2.) TO begin with it may be mentioned that learned Advocate General Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary raised a preliminary objection about the maintain ability of the writ petition here at Allahabad High Court on the ground that this was a matter which could have been filed and entertained only by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The basis of objection to entertainment of the habeas corpus petition was the fact that the petitioner has to be detained at District Jail Sultanpur. That the detention order against the petitioner stated the learned Advocate General contended that Sultanpur being situated within the jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench, and as a writ of habeas corpus has necessarily to go to the Jailor where the petitioner is confined, and that Jailor in this case being the Superintendant of the Sultan pur District Jail, the cause of action for the habeas corpus arose only against the order directing detention of the petitioner at Sultanpur, and hence the Lucknow Bench alone could issue a writ to the Superintendent of Sultanpur Jail. Apart from the fact that admittedly the petitioner is now detained in the District Jail, Bulandshahr, the argument of the learned Advocate General cannot be accepted as the order for detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr on the basis of the activities of the petitioner within the District of Bulandshahr. Bulandshahr being outside the jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench, and cases from Bulaudshahr being filed here at Allahabad in the High Court. , it is clear that part of the cause of action for filing this Habeas Corpus petition arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. In this connection it will be relevant to refer to Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India which reads as follows : " (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders 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, not with standing that the set of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. " Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by the Advocate General is not acceptable, It appears that the petitioner was wanted in several cases which are mentioned in grounds of detention concerning his activities on 20-5-1991 during the polling in the district of Bulandshahr. These activities of 20th May, 1991 coupled with some activities of the petitioner dated 16-7-1991, 21-7-1991, 22-7-1991, 3-8-1991 and 5-8-1991 have been made the grounds for passing the order of detention against the petitioner. The orders of detention were passed on 21-8-1991 directing the petitioner to be detained in District Jail, Sultanpur where the petitioner is alleged to have been arrested earlier on the same day at 2. 15 p. m. in connection with a case under Sections 353, 404, 506, 216 I. P. C. read with Section 182 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Sections 5/177/180 of the Motor Vehicle Act. As the present petition is not being disposed of on the question of relevancy of the grounds of detention to the object of detention viz. , the maintenance of the Public Order, we are not quoting the grounds of detention which runs over almost 10 foolscape pages.
(3.) THIS petition was moved on 19-9-1991 when the respondents were granted time to file affidavit. Number of supplementary affidavits, supple mentary counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Consequently, despite the fact that there was no formal order of admission of this petition, as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, we have heard this petition for its disposal on merits at the stage of admission itself. We have heard Sri Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned Advocate General and thereafter the learned Government Advocate at some length on various points which were raised in this petition.;