2025 (11) TMI 616 - HC - Customs

Habeas corpus petition dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction where cause of action arose outside jurisdiction

Anuj Dhawan and Another Versus Union of India and Others

HC dismissed the habeas corpus petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The detention arose from alleged smuggling of foreign-origin gold recovered ... Territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition - illegal detention of petitioner - smuggling of Gold - failure to provide an opportunity to the petitioners to file a representation and consider the same - HELD THAT:- In the case of Arun Mahajan [2017 (9) TMI 763 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], this High Court observed that if any part of cause of cause of action does not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court, the habeas corpus petition is not maintainable. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Rajendra Bissani v. Union of India [1994 (8) TMI 150 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] has observed that a High Court can issue writs where the cause of action arise wholly or in part within its territorial jurisdiction. As per above mentioned verdict mere enforcement or execution of a detention order within its territory does not by itself constitute a cause of action for quashing the order. If the factual matrix of the present case is analyzed it transpires that in the detention order it has been clearly recorded that on 09.07.2024, 108 Kgs of foreign origin gold was recovered near Sirigaple in Eastern Ladakh by patrolling party of 21' Battalion ITBP, while being smuggled from China on mules by two porters namely Tenzin Dhargyal and Tsering Chamba who were detained by the ITBP - it transpires that there are very specific and categoric allegations against the petitioners that whatever transaction of smuggled gold had taken place with the petitioners, it was at Delhi and not even on a single occasion any such transaction had ever taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In the present case, the petitioners have tried to build up their case with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that they were in Central Jail, Ludhiana, where the detention order was served upon them. However, in view of the fact that the only relevant factor with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court is the cause of action pertaining to instant case and any such cause of action has not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it is held that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present writ petition. Once it has been held that any part of cause of action pertaining to instant case did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court - petition dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ under Article 226 challenging detention made under a preventive statute when the alleged smuggling acts, seizures and detaining/confirming authorities' actions occurred outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction. 2. If territorial jurisdiction is established, whether the preventive detention orders under COFEPOSA were vitiated by (a) being passed while the detenus were already in judicial custody without recording satisfaction as to likelihood of release on bail, (b) non-application of mind to relevant factors, (c) denial or unreasonable delay in considering detenus' representations, or (d) absence of exceptional circumstances required for invoking preventive detention. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ under Article 226 Legal framework: A High Court may entertain a writ only where the cause of action, or part thereof, giving rise to alleged infringement of rights arises within its territorial jurisdiction. Mere residence of the detenu or execution/serving of a detention order within the territory is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Precedent treatment: Prior authoritative rulings establishing that the locus of cause of action, not the detenu's residence or place of service, governs territorial jurisdiction were considered and applied by the Court. Interpretation and reasoning: The detention order records that seizure of smuggled gold occurred near the Indo-Tibet border and related transactions, alleged confessions and sales took place in Delhi and Ladakh; investigation and investigative actions were entrusted to a specialized unit outside the High Court's territory. The detention and confirmation orders originate from authorities seated in New Delhi and the operative acts (interception, seizure, supply and transactions) do not disclose any part of the cause of action arising within this Court's territorial domain. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Court's conclusion that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable unless a part of the cause of action arises within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction is determinative of this issue. Observations about the irrelevance of mere custody in a local jail to create jurisdiction are part of the controlling conclusion. Conclusions: The Court holds that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction; therefore it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition and the petition must be dismissed on that ground. Issue 2 - Merit: validity of detention orders when petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Legal framework: Preventive detention law requires the detaining authority to record satisfaction based on relevant material, to apply its mind to the likelihood of release (including on bail) before detaining a person already in custody, to consider representations without unreasonable delay, and to invoke preventive powers only in exceptional circumstances consistent with the statute's preventive (not punitive) object. Precedent treatment: The Court considered established principles that (a) preventive detention while a person is already in custody is permissible only if the detaining authority is aware of custody and records reasons why detention is necessary, (b) detention orders not showing apprehension of imminent release or non-application of mind are liable to be set aside, and (c) failure to consider representations within reasonable time vitiates detention. Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioners argued that the detention orders were mechanically passed while they were in judicial custody, without recording satisfaction about likelihood of release on bail, and without timely consideration of representations; they also contended absence of exceptional circumstance for invoking preventive detention and alleged arbitrariness. The Court noted these contentions and recited legal tests and authority on such procedural and substantive safeguards. However, having found lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Court refrained from adjudicating these merit-based contentions and held that further examination would be futile absent jurisdiction. Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - the Court's recitation of the procedural and substantive principles governing preventive detention (including requirements as to recording of satisfaction, consideration of representations, and exceptional circumstances) reflects binding law but the Court did not decide whether the present detention orders failed these tests because it dismissed the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. Conclusions: No adjudication on the merits was undertaken owing to absence of jurisdiction. The Court expressly declined to consider whether the detention orders were invalid on grounds raised by the petitioners; those questions remain open for a forum with competent territorial jurisdiction. Ancillary points and cross-references 1. The fact of service of a detention order on a detenu while in local custody or jail (execution/serving within the Court's territory) does not, by itself, create a cause of action for challenging the order before that High Court; see Issue 1 analysis. 2. Where the investigative and detaining authorities, the site of seizure/interception and the alleged illegal transactions are located outside a High Court's territory, challenges to preventive detention should be brought before the High Court having territorial competence; this follows from the Court's application of the territorial-cause-of-action principle. 3. Because the Court dismissed the petition on jurisdictional grounds, no findings were recorded on whether procedural lapses or absence of exceptional circumstances rendered the detention orders illegal; those questions were identified but left undecided and are to be determined, if pursued, by a properly constituted forum with territorial jurisdiction.