Dismissed¶27

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju v. UOI and Ors.

Delhi HC25 Feb 2026W.P.(CRL)/3765/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(CRL) 3765/2025; Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju; detention order No. Home (A) A(9)-57/2024 PIT NDPS; Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act; Section 12(1)(a) PITNDPS Act; Article 226/227 Constitution of India; territorial jurisdiction; maintainability; Department of Home Himachal Pradesh; Shimla; freezing order 15.03.2025; representation 18.09.2025 Central Government; letter of authorization; emails 25.09.2025 26.09.2025; dismissal with liberty; Navin Chawla; Ravinder Dudeja; 25.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal with liberty to the petitioner to avail of his remedies in accordance with law before the Court of competent jurisdiction. ¶27

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju Vs UOI and Ors. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissal with liberty to the petitioner to avail of his remedies in accordance with law before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging a detention order issued by the Department of Home, State of Himachal Pradesh, where the basis of the order arose and the petitioner is detained within that State. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The impugned detention order was passed at Shimla, Himachal Pradesh; the petitioner is admittedly detained there; and the freezing order dated 15.03.2025 under Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act was also passed in Himachal Pradesh; therefore the entire cause of action has arisen in the State of Himachal Pradesh and not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the contesting party being the State of Himachal Pradesh.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The sole ground for invoking this Court's territorial jurisdiction — filing of representations with respondent no. 1 — fails: respondent no. 1 would consider the representation on merits only upon receipt of the petitioner's letter of authorization, which was admittedly never submitted, and the emails requisitioning that authorization were not challenged before this Court.

¶22

Key takeaways

This Court finds that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(CRL) 3765/2025 (High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Navin Chawla & Ravinder Dudeja, JJ., 25.02.2026) — dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. Petitioner Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju sought quashing under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of detention order No. Home (A) A(9)-57/2024 PIT NDPS dated 15.03.2025 made by respondent no. 2 under Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act, and release of the seized properties. The Court held that the detention order was passed at Shimla, the petitioner is admittedly detained there, and the freezing order dated 15.03.2025 under Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act was likewise passed in Himachal Pradesh, so the entire cause of action arose in that State and not within this Court's territorial jurisdiction. The representation dated 18.09.2025 made to the Central Government (respondent no. 1) pursuant to Section 12(1)(a) PITNDPS Act did not create jurisdiction here: respondent no. 1 would consider it on merits only on receipt of a letter of authorization, which was never submitted, and the emails of 25.09.2025 and 26.09.2025 requisitioning it were not challenged. Petitioner granted liberty to seek remedies before a court of competent jurisdiction.

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 3765/2025

¶4

SANJAY KUMAR @ SANJU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Mehta, Advocate. versus UOI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shashank Bajpai, CGSC Mr. Aashna Mehra, Mr. Vatsal Tripathi, and Mr Govind Singh Chauhan, Advs. for R-1.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R % 25.02.2026

¶6

W.P.(CRL) 3765/2025

¶7

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for the following relief:

¶8

i) Allow the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India quash the order of detention and order the release of the seized properties of the detenu.

¶9

ii) Issue a Writ/Order /direction for quashing the detention order No. Home (A) A(9) -57/2024 PIT NDPS dated 15.3.2025 made by respondent no.2 U/s 3(1) PIT NDPS Act against the petitioner.

¶10

iii) Pass such other or further writ/ order/ direction, which this Hon’ble court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶11

The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 raised a

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/02/2026 at 13:15:29

¶14

preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present petition before this Court, by contending that the impugned detention order dated 15.03.2025 has been issued by the Department of Home, State of Himachal Pradesh. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that the basis for issuing the impugned detention order had all arisen within the territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh, and the petitioner is also detained within the State. He submits that therefore, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and the petitioner must approach the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, if so advised.

¶15

On the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as recorded in the order dated 10.02.2026 of this Court, had submitted that in terms of Section 12(1)(a) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PITNDPS Act’), the petitioner had made a representation dated 18.09.2025 to the Central Government, seeking revocation of his detention order. He had submitted that since the said representation had not been decided, a cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondent today submits that on receipt of the said representation, by emails dated 25.09.2025 and 26.09.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner through whom the representations has been purportedly filed by the petitioner, had been informed that as the representations were not accompanied with letter of authorization from the petitioner, they shall be considered only on receipt of such authorization.

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/02/2026 at 13:15:29

¶19

He further submits that the receipt of these emails stands admitted as they have been filed along with the Writ Petition. However, no response to these emails was ever sent by the petitioner nor was the letter of authorization submitted to the competent authority. Therefore, the occasion for deciding the representation never arose.

¶20

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶21

As would be evident from the above, the impugned detention order has been passed at Shimla, State of Himachal Pradesh; the petitioner is admittedly in detention there; and pursuant thereto, the freezing order dated 15.03.2025 under Section 3(1) of PITNDPS Act has also been passed in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, the entire cause of action has arisen in the State of Himachal Pradesh, and not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The contesting party in the present petition would be State of Himachal Pradesh.

¶22

The only ground for invoking the territorial jurisdiction of this court, despite no specific prayer having been made to that effect, was the filing of the representations with the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 had considered the said representation and stated that on merits it can be considered only when the letter of authorization from the petitioner is received. Admittedly, the letter of authorization was never submitted to the respondent no. 1 and the emails by which the letter of authorization was requisitioned from the petitioner has not been challenged before this court.

¶23

Accordingly, we find that we lack territorial jurisdiction to

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/02/2026 at 13:15:29

¶26

entertain the present petition.

¶27

We dismiss the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail of his remedies in accordance with law before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶28

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶29

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶30

FEBRUARY 25, 2026/lks/ma/as

¶31

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/02/2026 at 13:15:29

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju v. UOI and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju v. UOI and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Kumar Kapri Vs State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr. & Anr.

Manisha Jha Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Xyz Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Piyush Agrawal & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Nitin Panwar & Ors. Vs State Govt NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Janki Devi Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Abhijeet Kumar Singh Vs Foreigner Regional Registration Officer & Ors.

Rajiv Kumar Singhal Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Manisha Jha Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Pappu Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Shabbir Ahamad Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Mrs. Shila Devi Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Sanjeet Sharma Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Janki Devi Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.