TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been invited to the various other documents including the order passed against Tariq Haji Gaffar, brother of the petitioner, in which at Para 17 the premises of the petitioner herein are shown as "10, Badrudin Chambers, Near Sadanand Hotel, Sarang Street, Mumbai-400 003". Our attention is also invited to the documentary evidence placed on record from pages 84 onwards of the petition as also the notice dated 19th April, 2001 addressed to the petitioner by the Preventive Officer, that in accordance with the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana a notice is being served that he is to be arrested in Special Investigation & Intelligence Branch (EP) of New Custom House and that Courts in Mumbai will have jurisdiction over the matter. It is also pointed out that merely because the petition filed by the petitioner before the Gujarat High Court has been withdrawn would not bar the petitioner from maintaining the present petition before this Court. Reliance is placed for that purpose on various authorities. It is then contended that the averments in the petition by the petitioner that the grounds of detention are the same as were served on his brother whose order of detention has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce issued by the respondent No. 1"17. is absolutely illegal, the petitioner is neither absconding nor hiding himself and neither any efforts have been made to serve the petitioner. The petitioner is permanent resident of this place and could be easily served." Earlier in Paras 1 and 3 of the same petition the petitioner had averred that he is doing his business and residing at Chandigarh and it is in these circumstances that the Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court has jurisdiction over the matter. From the affidavit in support of the said petition we find that in another Misc. Petition namely Criminal Misc. Application No. 2900-M of 2001 has been taken out and a learned Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court was pleased to grant stay in the matter of arrest of the petitioner herein. Those proceedings have been disposed of. The orders have not been made available to this Court. 3.The petitioner thereafter on 24th December, 2001 filed a petition before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad wherein the reliefs prayed for are the same or similar as prayed for in the present petition. That petition was disposed of as withdrawn by a learned Single Judge of that Court by order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid by them before the execution of the detention order. It was further pointed out that the sponsoring authority in the case of the appellant also had submitted his report before the detaining authority for revoking the detention order which was passed against the appellant. The appellant in the like manner like the other five against whom the detention orders had been revoked had also paid the customs duty as demanded and after the detention order had surrendered his licence and had stopped all economic activities of exporting or importing of goods. The stand of the Union of India was that at the time the detention orders against the five persons was revoked, the perception of the Central Government was, if duty levied has been paid in the cases detected against those persons that may act as a deterrent against their chance of indulging in similar prejudicial activities in future since this may adversely affect their financial backbone and it is following that line of thinking that the Central Government had revoked the detention orders issued against those 5 persons. In so far as the appellant was concerned, it was contended that, perception had subsequently changed and accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nuary, 2002 though the source of information is not disclosed it is sent out that the petitioner was asked to surrender and withdraw the petition whereupon the petitioner had withdrawn the petition. Considering that the source has not been disclosed this aspect cannot be considered. However, what is important to note is that the petitioner withdrew the petition and filed a petition before this Court and suppressed that fact from this Court. Under similar circumstance the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. (supra) at paragraph seven the Apex Court observed that when the respondent had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi and that writ petition was subsequently withdrawn, this fact should have been clearly stated in the course of the petition filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Not disclosing this fact is fatal to the petition. 7.The petitioner has come to this Court seeking a relief to quash the order of detention even before the petitioner has surrendered. It is no doubt true that in situations as are covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Additional Secretary to Government of India & Ors. v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia & Anr., (supra) there is ....