Bombay HC asserts jurisdiction over habeas corpus petition challenging COFEPOSA detention, emphasizing location and service of order.

The Bombay High Court held jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition concerning the detention of Smt. Durga Ramchand Bhatia under COFEPOSA. The Court rejected the argument that the detention order's impact on fundamental rights justified jurisdiction elsewhere, emphasizing the location of detention and service of the order in Maharashtra. The Court acknowledged the detaining authority's convenience but allowed the case to proceed in the Bombay High Court, considering time and circumstances.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in habeas corpus matters.
2. Validity of the detention order under COFEPOSA.
3. Territorial jurisdiction based on the detenu's activities and residence.
4. Impact of the detention order on fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Habeas Corpus Matters:
The primary issue is whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition u/s 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that the High Court has jurisdiction because the detenu was detained at Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra, and the detention order affects her fundamental rights.

2. Validity of the Detention Order under COFEPOSA:
The detenu, Smt. Durga Ramchand Bhatia, was detained u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The order was passed by a Joint Secretary to the Government of India with the objective "to prevent her from smuggling goods." The petitioner contended that the detention order relates to activities within Maharashtra, thus part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.

3. Territorial Jurisdiction Based on the Detenu's Activities and Residence:
The respondents argued that the detenu's smuggling activities occurred outside Maharashtra, and the detention order was made in Delhi, with the detenu to be detained in Calcutta. The Court noted that the detenu's activities in Maharashtra were not directly related to the smuggling for which she was detained. The Court emphasized that the object of the detention order was to prevent smuggling, which did not occur in Maharashtra.

4. Impact of the Detention Order on Fundamental Rights under Article 19:
The petitioner argued that the detention order infringes on the detenu's fundamental rights under Article 19, specifically her right to move freely and reside in any part of India. The Court referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Smt. Manjulaben v. C. T. A. Pillay, which allowed habeas corpus petitions to be filed in any High Court based on the impact on fundamental rights. However, the Court disagreed with this expansive view, stating that allowing such petitions in any High Court would lead to "forum shopping" and chaos.

The Court concluded that the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction because the detenu was taken into custody and served with the detention order at Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra. The Court acknowledged the convenience of the detaining authority but decided not to direct the petitioner to move another court, considering the time already spent and the detenu's circumstances.

Order:
The case shall proceed to a hearing on merits in the Bombay High Court.

---