Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Bombay High Court at Nagpur had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order, and whether the petitioner's residence in Vidarbha or the detenu's place of detention constituted a sufficient cause of action.
Analysis: The petition was founded on the petitioner's residence at Khamgaon, while the detention order was served at Bombay, the detenu was lodged in a Bombay jail, and the detaining authority was located in New Delhi. The constitutional scheme of Article 226 distinguishes between jurisdiction based on the seat of the authority and jurisdiction based on cause of action. The concept of cause of action was introduced by the Fifteenth Amendment, and territorial rules under the Bombay Reorganisation Act and the Appellate Side Rules regulate the exercise of jurisdiction but cannot curtail the constitutional power under Article 226. A relative's residence by itself does not constitute cause of action in a challenge to detention, whereas the place of detention does.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection was upheld. The Nagpur Bench lacked jurisdiction, and the matter was directed to be transmitted to the Bombay Bench.