R.K.Manisana,J- In this application the petitioner Girish Chandra Kakoty complains against his arrest and detention and prays for quashing the FIR. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 1.12.90 by the army authority and on the very same day the army authority made him over to the officer in charge of the Sibsagar Police Station, and the civil police arrested him in connection with FIR Case No. 423 of 1990 under sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, for short 'the TADA Act'. In the list of the accused in the FIR, serial No. 15 shows the name of the accused as "Mr. Kakoty". However in the body of the report, it is stated 5 "Mr. Kakoty of Jayshree Gas Co." 3. Mr. P.O. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present petitioner whose name is Girish Chandra Kakoty is not the person mentioned in the FIR and, therefore, the petitioner, Girish Chandra Kakoty is to be released after quashing the FIR. 4. It may be stated here that originally the petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the petition was converted to as one under section 482,CrPC at the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the matter, Mr. M.A. Laskar, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam has contended that High Court has no jurisdiction to exercise its power under section 482, CrPC to quash the FIR in question. In order to support his contention learned Additional Advocate General has referred us to a decision of-the Supreme Court reported as Ushmanbhai vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1988 SC 922 . In that case in para 16, the Supreme Court has held : "Under the scheme of the Act (the TADA Act), there is complete exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court in any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation or having committed an offence punishable under the Act (the TADA Act) or any rules made there under," (words within brackets supplied) The above-quoted passage clearly reveals that the High Court has no jurisdiction in a case involving arrest of any person on the accusation of having committed an offence punishable under the TADA Act or rules made there under. The present is a case involving arrest of the petitioner on the accusation of having committed an offence punishable under the TADA Act. For decision whether or not the FIR in question is liable to be quashed, the Court has to examine whether the accusation made in the report discloses the essential requirement of an offence under the TADA Act. But the above decision of the Supreme Court debars the High Court from examining the report as to whether it prima-facie discloses commission of an offence under the TADA Act. Therefore, under section 482, CrPC, the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for quashing the FIR in which accusation of commission of an offence under the TADA Act is involved. 5. With the view of saving the situation faced by him, Mr. Baruah has prayed for reconversion of the petition to one under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that, on account of the mistake of the lawyer no mis-carriage of justice should cause to the parties. In the present case, there is an assertion that fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution has been violated. Since protection of the fundamental right is involved we are inclined to hear this petition as one under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The question which, therefore, requires for consideration is whether the High Court can grant relief in a case arising out of arrest of a person on the accusation of having committed an offence under TADA Act. In re Ktrala Education Bill, 1957, AIR 1958 SC 956 , a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court hag, while considering the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, held s "No enactment of a State Legislature can, as long as that Article stands, take away or abridge the jurisdiction and power conferred on the High Court by that Article." The position which emerges from the above decision is that where a statutory provision bars the jurisdiction of 'Courts' generally, it will not bar the juries-of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the TADA Act does not take away the remedies available under Article 226 of the Constitution. Our view gains support from the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment in Ushmambhai's case (supra). Therefore, the TADA Act does not take away the remedies available under Article 226 of the Constitution. Our view gains support from the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment in Ushmambhai's case (supra). Therefore, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 may grant appropriate reliefs. 7. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the High Court would invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Consti­tution in the present case. The State has produced the case diary. On perusal of the diary, it is found that one Jugal Kishor Kakoty was examined. In his statement it is stated that he is the owner of "Jayshree Gas Agency", As already stated, the name of the accused at serial number 15 is "Mr.Kakoty' and in the body of the report it has been stated *'Mr. Kakoty of Jayshree Gas Co." Therefore, 'Mr. Kakoty" is referable to Mr. Jugal Kishor Kakoty, not to Girish Chandra Kakoty, the present petitioner. On perusal of the case diary and the materials collected by the police, at this stage there is nothing to link the present petitioner with the offence registered. For these reasons, we are inclined to invoke our jurisdiction. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner Girish Chandra Kakoty shall be released forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. However, the Investigating Officer will be at liberty to further investigate the case, and if he finds materials disclosing commission of any offence by the petitioner Girish Chandra Kakoty under TADA Act, he shall submit charge-sheet against the petitioner along with the other accused, if any. The Investigating Officer or the Public Prosecutor is also given liberty to approach competent Court for arrest of the petitioner otherwise for proceeding with the trial of the case. 9. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the petition is disposed of. No costs.