Territorial jurisdiction in habeas corpus detention challenges can arise where custody and service of the detention order occur.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 in a habeas corpus challenge to preventive detention depends on whether the authority or person is within the court's limits, or whether part of the cause of action arises there. The court rejected the broad claim that such petitions may be filed wherever the detenu alleges infringement of movement and residence rights, as that would defeat territorial limits and encourage forum shopping. It held that when the detenu is taken into custody and contemporaneously served with the detention order and grounds, that place forms part of the cause of action. On the stated facts, Ulhasnagar attracted jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order when the detenu was taken into custody and served with the detention order and grounds at Ulhasnagar, though the detention order was made at Delhi and the place of detention was Calcutta.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on the location of the authority or person within the Court's limits or on the cause of action arising wholly or in part within those limits. The Court rejected the contention that every habeas corpus petition can be filed wherever the detenu asserts rights under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 19(1)(e), holding that such a view would nullify the territorial limits built into Article 226 and encourage forum shopping. It also held that the place where the detention order is merely made is not by itself the decisive factor in all detention cases. In a habeas corpus challenge, the restraint on liberty becomes actionable when the detenu is taken into custody to serve the detention order, and where the order and grounds are served contemporaneously with custody, that place furnishes part of the cause of action. On the facts, Ulhasnagar was the place where the detenu was taken into custody and served with the detention order and grounds, and therefore the Court's territorial jurisdiction was attracted.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition, and the objection to territorial jurisdiction failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was held maintainable in the Bombay High Court on territorial jurisdictional grounds and was directed to proceed to hearing on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In a habeas corpus challenge to preventive detention, the place where the detenu is taken into custody and served with the detention order and grounds can constitute part of the cause of action for purposes of Article 226 territorial jurisdiction.

---