Territorial jurisdiction in preventive detention turns on cause of action, not mere residence or apprehended arrest.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 in preventive detention matters cannot rest on the detenu's residence or apprehended arrest alone; a court must identify a part of the cause of action within its territory. The text also stresses that an alleged stay order supported only by photocopies and a later certified copy, without service of the original on the State for several years, raises serious authenticity concerns. In such circumstances, the court treated the document as suspect, directed inquiry, and held that the State was not bound to act on the alleged stay order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Court should act on a purported certified copy of an alleged stay order said to have been passed by another High Court when the original order had not been served on the State for several years. (ii) Whether the residence or apprehended arrest of the detenu within another State could by itself confer territorial jurisdiction on that High Court to restrain execution of a preventive detention order issued by the State of Kerala.

Issue (i): Whether the Court should act on a purported certified copy of an alleged stay order said to have been passed by another High Court when the original order had not been served on the State for several years.

Analysis: The alleged stay was supported only by letters, photocopies and, much later, a document said to be a certified copy. No original order or court notice had been served on the State for more than three years. The nature of interim relief in COFEPOSA matters is exceptional, and the prolonged non-production of the original and the unexplained delay in service created serious doubt about the authenticity of the document. The Court therefore treated the genuineness of the certified copy as suspect and directed inquiry by the Crime Branch.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the residence or apprehended arrest of the detenu within another State could by itself confer territorial jurisdiction on that High Court to restrain execution of a preventive detention order issued by the State of Kerala.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 requires a part of the cause of action to arise within the Court's jurisdiction. Mere residence of the detenu, or an apprehension of arrest, is not enough where the respondents and the detention order are outside that jurisdiction. The Court applied the settled rule that preventive detention matters do not stand on the same footing as anticipatory bail, and emphasised that comity of courts cannot validate an order passed without jurisdiction. On the materials shown, no sufficient basis existed to say that any part of the cause of action arose within the other High Court's territory.

Conclusion: The State of Kerala was not bound to release the detenu on the basis of the alleged stay order.

Final Conclusion: The challenge based solely on the alleged stay order failed, and the detention was not disturbed, though the detenu was left free to pursue other available grounds independently.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot rest on mere residence or apprehension of arrest, and a court will not compel a State to act on an unserved and doubtful order said to have been passed by another High Court without clear proof that part of the cause of action arose within that court's jurisdiction.

---