TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../CR-21(2)/SPL3(A), Whereas I, Medha Gadgil, Principal Secretary (Appeals & Security) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) vide Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. MIS-2009/CR-113/SPL-3(A) dated the 30th September 2009, am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Arun Mahajan (age 48 years) residing at C-1/210, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058, that with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling goods, it is necessary to make the following order: In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974), I hereby direct that the said Shri Arun Mahajan be detained under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. 2. In pursuance of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (Maharashtra Conditions of Detention) Order 1974 read with Government Order, Home Department No. SB.III/SA-3974 (V) dated the 18th December, 1974, I hereby further direct that said Shri Arun Mahajan shall be detained in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tary & Detaining Authority, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai (Annexure P-17). The petitioner also moved representation dated 18.11.2011 to Chief Secretary and Detaining Authority, Cofeposa, Mumbai (Annexure P-18). He filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2011 in Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2011 (Annexure P-20) with liberty that in case any detention order is passed in future, the petitioner shall have the liberty to assail the same in accordance with law. Regarding his case, the petitioner had been filing representations before the competent authorities of Custom Department in Mumbai and had also filed Writ Petition in Bombay High Court challenging their action of confiscation of goods, his detention order, seeking bail etc. 5. The petitioner has filed present petition in this Court seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus for setting aside order dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by competent authority of Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority on the ground that he is also residing at Sonipat and carrying out his business activities in Sonipat and other parts of Haryana, as such, order of detention is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decided on 30.07.2009. He has also relied on observations in cases of Ashok Sadarangani vs. State of Punjab and others, CRWP No. 117 of 2014, decided on 27.03.2014, Joit Kumar Jain vs. State of Punjab and others, CRWP No. 248 of 2014, decided on 27.03.2014, Sat Pal Jain and another vs. Joint Secretary to the Government of India (Detaining Authority) and another, 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 607, D.N. Anand vs. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, 1993 (2) RCR (Criminal) 104, Trilok Nath Mittal vs. Union of India and others, 1994 (1) RCR (Criminal) 247, Mrs. Arvind Shergill vs. Union of India, 1994 (4) RCR (Criminal) 781, B. Shareefa Ummer vs. Joint Secretary, 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal) 249, S.P. Goyal vs. Union of India, 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal) 83, Umed Mal vs. Union of India and others, 1998 CriLJ 3465 and Tejinder Singh Makkar vs. State of Punjab and others, CRWP No. 912 of 2007, decided on 13.02.2008. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the order in this case was passed by competent authority of Government of Maharashtra. The mere fact that the order was conveyed to petitioner at his address of New Delhi does not confer any jurisdiction to the Court at New Delhi and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.......to issue to any person or authority.................within those territories...". So far as a natural person is concerned, there can be no doubt that he can be within those territories only if he resides therein either permanently or temporarily. So far as an authority is concerned, there can be no doubt that if its office is located therein it must be within the territory. But do these words mean with respect to an authority that even though its office is not located within those territories it will be within those territories because its order may affect persons living in those territories? Now it is clear that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Article 226 does not depend upon the residence or location of the person applying to it for relief; it depends only on the person or authority against whom a writ is sought being within those territories. It seems to us therefore that it is not permissible to read in Article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court. That jurisdiction depends on the person or authority passing the order being within those territories and the residence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as nowhere referred his address of Sonipat to the competent authority and his mere assertion that he is also resident of Sonipat is without basis. Even otherwise, service of notice at Sonipat does not confer jurisdiction to entertain such petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 14. A similar question arose before Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s Swaika Properties (supra), which find mention in para 1 of the judgment in that case, as follows:- "The issue involved in this appeal by special leave is: Whether the service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 ('Act' for short) served on the respondents at their registered office at 18-B, Brabourne Road, Calcutta by the Special Officer, Town Planning Department, Jaipur was an integral part of the cause of action and was sufficient to invest the Calcutta High Court with jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of a notification dated February 8, 1984 issued by the State Government of Rajasthan under Section 52 (1) of the Act for the acquisition of certain lands belonging to them required by the Urban....