1992 (10) TMI 262 - HC - Indian Laws

Madras High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Detention Order Under COFEPOSA

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a detention order under COFEPOSA, citing lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the ... - Issues Involved1. Jurisdiction of the Madras High Court to entertain the writ petition.2. Validity of the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA).Issue-wise Detailed AnalysisJurisdiction of the Madras High CourtThe primary issue addressed was whether the Madras High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the wife of the detenu, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus to quash the detention order and release her husband.1. Petitioner's Argument:- The petitioner argued that the detenu hailed from Thanjavur, within the limits of the Madras High Court's jurisdiction.- Although settled in Malaysia, the detenu had relations in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner, his wife, had come from Malaysia to Madras, stayed in a lodge, and sent a representation from Madras to transfer the detenu from Calcutta to Madras.- The representation was rejected and communicated to her in Madras, which, according to the petitioner, provided a cause of action for filing the writ petition in the Madras High Court.- The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in A.K. Roy v. Union of India, which emphasized that a detenu should be detained within the environs of their ordinary place of residence.2. Respondent's Argument:- The respondent contended that the detenu had settled in Malaysia and had no property, house, or close relatives in Tamil Nadu.- The mere fact that the petitioner's wife came to Madras and sent a representation from there did not confer jurisdiction on the Madras High Court.- The respondent argued that the decision in A.K. Roy's case was not applicable as the detenu was not an ordinary resident of Tamil Nadu.- The detenu's voluntary statement indicated he had no significant ties to Tamil Nadu, and administrative convenience, safety, and security justified his detention in Calcutta.3. Court's Analysis:- The court noted that the detenu was apprehended at Calcutta Airport while smuggling gold and that the detention order was passed based on the materials and subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.- The court observed that the detenu's voluntary statement confirmed his settlement in Malaysia and lack of significant ties to Tamil Nadu.- The court found that the detenu's wife staying in a lodge in Madras and sending a representation did not establish a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court.- The court referenced several precedents, including State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Swaika Properties and Daya Shankar v. Chief of the Air Staff, to support the principle that the cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.- The court concluded that the detenu's detention and the rejection of the representation occurred in Calcutta, and thus, the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction over the matter.Validity of the Detention OrderThe court did not delve into the merits of the detention order under COFEPOSA, as it determined that the Madras High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.ConclusionThe Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, stating that the cause of action did not arise within its territorial limits. The court held that the appropriate jurisdiction lay with the Calcutta High Court, where the detenu was apprehended, detained, and where the rejection of the representation was first communicated.