Preventive detention and territorial jurisdiction: non-supply of relied upon documents and cause of action at Hyderabad invalidated the detention.

In preventive detention matters, all relied upon documents form part of the grounds that must be supplied under Article 22(5); non-supply in the original language and delayed service of the grounds and supporting material vitiated the detention order. The detention was therefore held invalid. On territorial jurisdiction, the High Court could entertain the writ because the detenu's representation seeking transfer was made, rejected, and communicated at Hyderabad, so part of the cause of action arose there. The petition succeeded on both the merits and the jurisdictional objection, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-supply of the relied upon documents in the original language and for failure to comply with the statutory time requirement for serving the grounds and documents; (ii) Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition because part of the cause of action arose at Hyderabad when the representation seeking transfer of the detenu was rejected and communicated there.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated for non-supply of the relied upon documents in the original language and for failure to comply with the statutory time requirement for serving the grounds and documents.

Analysis: The grounds of detention were founded on numerous documents, and their non-supply in the original language deprived the detenu of the material needed to make an effective representation. Such documents formed part of the grounds within the meaning of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The attempt to furnish them through the sponsoring authority did not cure the defect, and the service was in any event beyond the period prescribed for communication of grounds and supporting material under the preventive detention statute.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid on this ground and is in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition because part of the cause of action arose at Hyderabad when the representation seeking transfer of the detenu was rejected and communicated there.

Analysis: The detenu had a constitutionally protected right to have a meaningful consideration of the representation relating to his detention and incarceration conditions. The representation seeking transfer was made from Hyderabad, rejected there, and the rejection was communicated there. Since this affected the detenu's personal liberty and family association, a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the High Court.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition and this issue is in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The detention was quashed and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith, resulting in success for the petitioner on both the merits and jurisdictional objections.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, all relied upon documents form part of the grounds to be communicated under Article 22(5), and territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 can arise where a constitutionally significant representation is made, rejected, and communicated so as to affect the detenu's personal liberty.

---