A.P.CHOWDHRI, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the detention order issued against the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi Airport, New Delhi, from Dubai, on June 6, 1992. He collected his checked in baggage and started leaving by the green channel. He was intercepted near the exit gate and directed to get the baggage X-rayed. He was found carrying 24 carat gold concealed in various ways. The total quantity being carried by him was 500 grams valued at Rs. 1,43,500/- according to international prices and Rs. 2,57,500/- according to the prices of India. A complaint under the relevant provisions of law dated July 2, 1992, Annexure P-1 was instituted against the petitioner, which is pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The petitioner was allowed bail by the said Court vide order Annexure P-3 dated June 29, 1992. It appears that the Administrator, National Capital, Territory of Delhi issued an order of detention dated January 12, 1993 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The order could not be served upon the petitioner, who has filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking quashing of the order. In response to notice, a reply has been filed on affidavit by Shri M.U Sadhqui, Deputy Secretary (Home) to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. Two preliminary objections have been taken. The first one is regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The objections is based on the ground that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi and no part of the cause of action took place outside Delhi and, therefore, only the High Court at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction. The second preliminary objection is that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the order of detention can be assailed at the pre-execution stage only on limited grounds and no such ground having been made out in the present petition, the same was liable to be dismissed. On merits, it has been stated that even one incident is enough to sustain a valid detention order, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. It has also been stated that the petitioner made four trips abroad during a short duration without any apparent explanation and his method of concealing the gold when the same was recovered on June 6, 1992, at the Indira Gandhi International Airport indicated his propensity and inclination to indulge in smuggling. It was further stated that grounds of detention can be served only on the detenu and his relations were not entitled to be given a copy thereof.
(3.) UNDER clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, the powers conferred on the High Court by that Article can 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. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has averred that he permanently belongs to Ludhiana and the police tried to apprehend him at his house in order to serve the order of detention there. There is no specific denial of the fact that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Ludhiana. That being so, this court has territorial jurisdiction in dealing with this writ petition.;