Judgment :- Jagannadha Rao, C.J. This Writ Petition is filed for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus by the brother of the detenu, one C.K. Moosa. The Writ Petition was filed on 14-2-1994 for the issue of a writ of mandamus not to execute Ext. P3 order of detention dated 28-2-1990 issued by the State of Kerala, pending continuance of Ext. P1 stay order dated 13-11-1990, said to have been passed by the Cateutta High Court in Civil Order No. 12643 (W) of 1990; the original of" which, according to the respondents, is yet to be served on them by the Cateutta High Court. It is also prayed that a sum of Rs.10 lakhs is to be paid as compensation to the detenu for illegal custody and it is also stated that the detenu must be produced before this court and set at liberty by issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus. 2. It may be noticed that this Writ Petition is not filed questioning the grounds of detention or on any of the points normally raised in a COFEPOSA Habeas Corpus Application, but is filed solely basing upon an order allegedly passed by the Cateutta High Court on 13-11-1990 restraining the State of Kerala from executing an order of detention dated 28-2-1990 passed against the detenu. 3. While the detenu has slated that the detention order has been executed by the State Government on or about 8-12-1993, it is submitted before us by learned Government Pleader that the order has been executed on 13-12-1993. As staled earlier, the Writ Petition is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner only on the basis of the stay order allegedly granted by the Cateutta High Court on 13-11-1990 and not on any other grounds. 4. The following are the facts as revealed from the Writ Petition, and as per the statement of facts mentioned by learned Government Pleader. Jeep KRZ 7183 was stopped and searched by customs officers in Kerala on the road from Nadapuram-Badagara on 9-1-1990 and six gold biscuits and three gold pieces were recovered from inside a washing machine carried in the said Jeep. The detenu was travel! ing in the Jeep. On 10-1-1990, a statement was recorded from the detenu.. Jeep KRZ 7183 was stopped and searched by customs officers in Kerala on the road from Nadapuram-Badagara on 9-1-1990 and six gold biscuits and three gold pieces were recovered from inside a washing machine carried in the said Jeep. The detenu was travel! ing in the Jeep. On 10-1-1990, a statement was recorded from the detenu.. He admitted that he got the message from his brother, C.K. Kunjahammed at Doha through one Chcmbantavide Yousuf and Kalamvicettil Moosa, that his brother C.K. Kunjahammcd had sent some gold concealed in a washing machine through one Zakeer Hussain of Kakkampally and that Moosa, detenu, should lake delivery of the washing machine after paying Rs. 15,000 to Zakeer Hussain. Accordingly detenu went to the house of Zakccr Hussain and collected the washing machine. On his return the customs officers had intercepted him and the others accompanying him. 5. Learned Government Pleader has staled from the case record that the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, had earlier granted conditional bail on 17-1-1990, one of the conditions being that detenu must appear before the Superintendent, S.C.P. Unit, Cannanore, on every Wednesday, three times. It is stated that this order was later violated. Government of Kerala issued an order on 5-5-J990 (No. 1258.3/ SSA4/90/Home under S.7(1)(a) of the COFEPOSA act) stating that a detention order under COFEPOSA Act was passed on 28-2-1990, that the said detenu could not be apprehended till then, and that Government had reason to believe that he was concealing himself so that the detention order could not be executed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cannanore, was requested to take action under S.7(1)(a). The Addl. Chief. Judicial Magistrate issued a proclamation of warrant under S.87 Cr.P.C. on 16-3-1991. The detenu filed Crl.M.C.No. 206 of 1991 in the High Court challenging the said proceedings under S.7(1) and obtained stay relying on the order allegedly issued by the Cateutta High Court. The High Court disposed of the Crl.M.C. on 18-2-1992 asking the detenu to bring to the notice of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate about the order of the Cateutta High Court relied on, subject to surrendering before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tellicherry. It is slated that the said Court later dropped further proceedings on 21-3-1992, in view of the High Court's orders. 6. Chief Judicial Magistrate about the order of the Cateutta High Court relied on, subject to surrendering before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tellicherry. It is slated that the said Court later dropped further proceedings on 21-3-1992, in view of the High Court's orders. 6. But, curiously so, far, according to the learned Government Pleader, the State or its officers have not received the original order of the Cateutta High Court said to have been passed on 13-11-1990. The detenu has himself not produced the order before the Government, but got his affidavit filed on 24-1-1991 before the Government that an interim order was passed by the Cateutta High Court ina Writ Petition filed by the detenu that he (detenu) had not received a certified copy of the order, but was informed by his lawyer about it- Curiously, the detenu stated in the said affidavit as follows: "I (detenu) have not received the copy of the order so far. It was informed by my Advocate Mr. Rohit Kochhar that the certified copy of the order of the Court will be available to me shortly. I am prepared to produce the original order whenever it is received by me." It may be noticed that earlier to this, the said Advocate Sri. Rohit Kochhar, Advocate, 84, an and Lok, New Delhi, wrote to the Home Secretary, Kerala, District Superintendent of Police, Cannanore, Circle Inspector of Police, Koothuparamba on 15-11-1990 that the Cateutta High Court had granted stay on 13-11-1990 of service of detention order in' writ petition' and'a certified copy has been applied for'. No number was given. In his affidavit dated 24-1-1991 sent to Government, the detenu did not also give any number of the Writ Petition or date. Government record of the case also contains a photocopy of a letter dated 13-11-1990 from one Subra to Talukdar, Advocate, Bar Association, Cateutta, stating that justice U.C. Banerjee of the Cateutta High Court granted stay of service of detention order and that His Lordship directed 'that a copy "of the writ petition be served upon all respondents'. The said Advocate enclosed a photocopy of the Writ Petition. It does not contain any number. The said Advocate enclosed a photocopy of the Writ Petition. It does not contain any number. As things stood thus, the detenu, when he filed Crl.M.C. No. 206 of 1991 in this Court on 22-2-1991, filed as Annexure (I) there 'a true copy' of the order of the Cateutta High Court in Civil Order No. 12643(W)/90 dated 13-11-1990. Thereafter, the State Government contacted the West Bengal Government and got a reply from me Legal Remembrance, West Bengal Government in letter (017161) dated 8-3-1991, that they had requested Mr.N.A. Chowdhary, Addl. P.P., High Court of Cateutta, to represent the State of Kerala and do the needful. The Kerala Government sent a message on 26-3-1991 (No.1045/SSA4/91/ Home) to Mr. Chowdhary, Advocate to do the needful. Thereafter nothing has been heard either from the Cateutta High Court or from any of the Advocates at Cateutta or New Delhi. No notice or order has been received by the State Government or its officers from the Cateutta High Court. 7. The detention order was executed on 13-12-1993. Counsel for detenu sent a lawyer's notice duted 1-2-1994 alongwith a photocopy of the slay odor of Cateutta High Court dated 13-11-1990. The State Government replied on 14-2-1994 requesting him to produce the 'original certified copy'. So far it has not been produced before the State Government. 8. But before us, learned counsel for the petitioner (brother of the detenu) produced an order purporting to be the certified copy of the order dated 13-11-1990. We have kept it in a sealed cover along with letter of Delhi Advocate, Mr.Kochhar. 9. Meanwhile, the mailer has been referred to the State Advisory Board on 11-1-1994, and we are told that the Board gave personal hearing to the detenu, and that the Board has opined that there are-sufficient grounds for the detention. The Government have since confirmed the detention under S.8(f). 10. Two questions arise for consideration before us: (1) Whether this Court should take cognizance of an order purporting to be a certified copy of the stay order dated 13-11-1990 said to have been passed by the Cateutta High Court, especially when the original certified copy of order dated 13-11-1990 has not so far been produced either before the Government or before this Court, in the last more than three years and no notice or order has been served on the State Government from the Cateutta High Court so far? (2) Whether the State Government can contend before this Court that the detenu belongs to Kerala and is not ordinarily resident of West Bengal and even if he was a resident, the Cateutta High Court would not get any jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition and restrain service of detention order merely because of the residence of the detenu within West Bengal? 11. Point No. 1: -The Writ Petition is argued, not on the basis that there is anything wrong with the order of detention or the grounds - (perhaps these aspects arc reserved for another Writ Petition) -but on the ground that the service of the order dated 28-2-1990 of detention and actual detention on 13-12-1993 is illegal, in view of the alleged order dated 13-11-1990 said to have been granted by the Cateutta High Court restraining the State of Kerala from serving an order of detention. 12. Initially, Advocate Kochhar of Delhi wrote a tatter to the State of Kerala and its Officers on 15-11-1990 that the Cateutta High Court had passed an order on 13-11-90 restraining the State from serving its detention order. The detenu, through a lawyer of Kerala, sent an affidavit dated 24-1-1991 that there was a stay order of the Cateutta High Court. He neither gave the number of the case nor even the dale. He said he was trying to get a certified copy. One Subralo Talukdar, Advocate, Bar Association, Cateutta, sent a letter on 13-11-1990 stating that Cateutta High Court granted stay. He sent a photocopy of the Writ Petition without its registration number. The detenu filed a 'true copy' (not even a photocopy) of the order in CrI.M.C. No. 206 of 1991 in this Court. In this Writ Petition, a photocopy of the slay order is produced. For the first time, during the arguments before us, an order purporting to be a certified copy has been produced. 13. But, the original order has not been served on the State or its Officers so far, nor has the State received any notice of the filing of the Writ Petition so far, in the last three years. There were only photocopies of a certified copy. The order purporting to be a certified copy has been produced before us for the first time during arguments. There were only photocopies of a certified copy. The order purporting to be a certified copy has been produced before us for the first time during arguments. It should not take three years for the detenu or his lawyer to have the so-called certified copy produced before the authorities. Having regard to the long delay in the production of the order purporting to be a certified copy, we are unable to accept the same. We have examined tie same. We find some Court Fee stamps affixed, and some seals and certification purporting to be of the Cateutta High Court. If indeed the petitioner or the detenu were having the certified copy itself and not the photocopy thereof, there was no reason for not producing it either before the Government or in the Crl.M.C. proceedings all these three years. The Original Order or summons of Court have not been received so far. We are indeed inclined to order an inquiry into the genuineness of the so-called certified copy produced before us. 14. It is true that Courts give credence to letters of Advocates or to orders purporting to be certified copies. But when in a period of three years or more neither the original nor the so-called certified copy had been produced before anybody, serious doubts arc raised in our minds about the genuineness of the certified copy. Further, such stay orders are not normally passed as a matter of course in COFEPOSA cases. It is now settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court that only in very rare situations can any High Court grant such an order of slay of execution of detention order under COFEPOSA. Sec: N.K. Bapna v. Union of India ((1992) 3 SCC 512), State of I .N. v. P.K. Sluimsiuteen ((1992) 3 SCC 523) & nd ddl.secretary to Govt. of India v. Suit. Alka Subhash Gadia (1992 Suppl. (1) SC 496). We have referred to these cases in Abdul Azeez v. Union of India (1993 (1) KLT 906) and in Mo Juyil Varghese Thomas v. State of Kerala (W.A.No.1397/93 dated 12-11-1993). of India v. Suit. Alka Subhash Gadia (1992 Suppl. (1) SC 496). We have referred to these cases in Abdul Azeez v. Union of India (1993 (1) KLT 906) and in Mo Juyil Varghese Thomas v. State of Kerala (W.A.No.1397/93 dated 12-11-1993). The rare situations where a stay order can be granted before execution of a detention order arc: (i) where the impugned order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed; (u) that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person; (ui) that it is passed for a wrong purpose; (iv) that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds; or (v) that the authority to pass the order had no power to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner said the case conies under category (iv) above.. Not one among the grounds (I) to (XV) as set out in the photocopy of the Writ Petition filed in Cateutta High Court deals with vagueness or extraneous or irrelevant grounds in the detention order. They deal with sufficiency of material. Therefore, when the grant of a slay order by a Court is limited to rare situations, we have considerable doubts as to the genuineness of the certified copy produced before us for the first time after three years. We arc, therefore, directing the State Government to ask the Crime Branch to investigate into the genuineness of the certified copy produced before us. Point No. I is decided against the petitioner. 15. 3RLQW No. 2: - Learned Government Pleader submitted, with reference to decided rulings of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts that, even assuming that the Cateutta High Court had passed a slay order, the same is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as without part of the cause of action arising in Cateutta High Court jurisdiction, a writ or an order could not be issued by the High Court to the State of Kerala in respect of a COFEPOSA detention order passed by the State of Kerala. 16. By the Constitution (15th Amendment), High Courts obtained powers to entertain Writ Petitions against Slates or bodies outside its jurisdiction, provided any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court. 16. By the Constitution (15th Amendment), High Courts obtained powers to entertain Writ Petitions against Slates or bodies outside its jurisdiction, provided any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court. But the question is whether the mere allegation of residence of the detenu within the jurisdiction of the Cateutta High Court can confer jurisdiction in the absence of any part of the cause of action arising within its jurisdiction. It is settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts that mere residence of the petitioner without more, cannot confer jurisdiction, if the respondents are all outside the jurisdiction of the Court. See: Lt.Col.Khajoor Singh v. Union of India (AIR 1961 SC 532), State of Rajasthan v. M/s.Swaika Properties (AIR 1985 SC 1289); Bhagat Ram v. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 740); Abdul Kafi Khan v. Union of India (AIR 1979 Cal. 354); State o/t/.P. v. Jana Seva Karyalaya Ltd, (AIR 1994 Cal. 65); Rakesh v. Union of India (AIR 1988 All. 47) and Shashi Kant R. Clwdha v. Union of India (1990 (49) ELT56 (Cal.)). 17. The case in Shashi Kant R. Cliadha v. Union of India (1990 (49) ELT 56 (Cal.)) is a case arising under the COFEPOSA Act directly and it was held that detenu' s residence alone could not confer jurisdiction. We respectfully follow the above judgment of the Cateutta High Court which is directly in point. 18. As appears from the photocopy of the Writ Petition filed in the Cateutta High Court, assent by the Advocate (original of which has not so far been served on the Kerala Government in three years), the petitioner's brother (detenu) claimed to be employed in a restaurant called 'Scngupla Sweets' in Radha Nagar Road, P.S. Hirapur, District Badhuvan, West Bengal, while claiming to hail from Cannanore District of Kerala. He refers to recovery of gold from Taxi KRZ 7183, but does not say anything about the place of seizure. He speaks of a conditional bail order (which asks him to be present at Tellieherry every Wednesday), but does not say how he is claiming to be ordinarily a resident of West Bengal. A photocopy of the affidavit annexed to the Writ Petition leaves blanks, in the name of the petitioner, father's name, age, place of residence. This was on 13-11-1990. A photocopy of the affidavit annexed to the Writ Petition leaves blanks, in the name of the petitioner, father's name, age, place of residence. This was on 13-11-1990. In fact, no document is produced before us to substantiate that he was employed in West Bengal, he had written letters therefrom or had sent letters therefrom nor has a ration card, nor has he taken any house on rent, etc. In fact, counsel before us, who is appearing for the detenu' s brother, has no evidence in this behalf. 19. But, learned counsel contends that'apprehension' of the detenu that he will be arrested within the jurisdiction of the Cateutta High Court is part of the cause of action. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Madhmoodan v. Supol. of Police (1992 (2) KLT 83) but that case arising under S.438 Cr.P.C. dealing with 'anticipatory bail' is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the Section itself starts with the words 'when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session ", and it was held that the person so accused may move the Court within whose jurisdiction he was apprehending arrest. It is not necessary for us to say, one way or the other, whether the view expressed therein is correct or not for we are not concerned with S.438 Cr.P.C. It has been held by the Supreme Court that the provisions relating to 'bail' or 'parole' do not apply to preventive detention cases. See: Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan (AIR 1987 SC 1383). We are of the view that for purposes of 'cause of action' under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, merely because a person resides within the jurisdiction of the High Court concerned and such person 'apprehends' arrest from a State or authority located outside the territory of the jurisdiction of the said High Court, it cannot be said that any part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of that High Court. 20. 20. If the law were to be otherwise, a person proposed to be detained by the State of Kerala or its Officers can escape to a place within the jurisdiction of any other High Court in India and claim that he is residing within the jurisdiction of that Court and is apprehending arrest by Kerala State and obtain orders. In fact, in such a case, if persons proposed to be detained by the State of Kerala, go out and obtain such orders from olher High Courts, the Kerala State will be compelled to fight the cases in all other Stales and the High Court of Kerala will have no place at all in these matters. 21. It is argued that if this Court makes any observations with regard to the jurisdiction of the Cateutta High Court, it may offend the general principle of 'comity of courts'. We shall therefore consider the basis of this principle of 'comity' of courts and the exception thereto. 21 A. The forbearance which courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction administered under a single system exercise towards each olher, whereby conflicts or interference with I he process of each other is avoided, is called the principle of 'comity'. The said principle has perhaps no higher sanction than the utility which comes from concord (Cove// v. Heyn'uin:111 U.S.176). The doctrine of comity' between courts teaches that one court should defer action on causes even if they arc properly within Its jurisdiction, until courts of another jurisdiction with concurrent powers and already cognizant of the litigation, have had opportunity to pass upon the mailer (darr v. Burford : 339 U.S.200). Basically, the principle of 'comity' is not a mere doctrine applicable to courts alone. It is a principle involved in the relationships of nations or stales with each olher. It is no Ian obligation of international law. (In re Fischer's Will: 181 A. 875,119 N.J.Eq. 217). It is a principle of practice, expedience and convenience. 'Comity' persuades; but it does not command. It declares, not how a case shall be decided, but how it may with propriety be decided (Baldwin v. Aberommbie Fitch Co. CCA.N.Y. 228 F. 895). But, there are exceptions. The rule may be changed by legislation or by the need to conform, to the law of the State or if it is opposed to public policy. (Corbin v. Houleluni : 61 A. 131, 100 Me. CCA.N.Y. 228 F. 895). But, there are exceptions. The rule may be changed by legislation or by the need to conform, to the law of the State or if it is opposed to public policy. (Corbin v. Houleluni : 61 A. 131, 100 Me. 246, 70 L.R.A. 568). There are olher situations too and we shall refer to one such, which is directly in point. 22. A question similar to the one before us arose in United States of America in Lipluunv. S/«/e(22S.E.2d532). There, the applicant who applied for divorce in a State was a'mcresojoumer and the opposite party was not domiciled in that State. The Court there had no jurisdiction to grant a decree on substituted service and it was held that such decree, even though authorised by that Slate's Laws, was a mere nullity and (was not entitled to fulls faith and credit elsewhere as a matter of right) should no! be recognised by 'comity'. (See : Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 7A, 4th Reprint, p. 383). 23. Therefore, while it is true that this Court must honour orders, if passed by other High Courts and cannot ignore them, and must leave the parlies to go to the High Court which passed orders to have them vacated, the above principle must, of necessity, be initially applied to the High Court which first exercises jurisdiction to pass orders when no part of the cause of action arises before it. Otherwise, if the High Court within whose jurisdiction the entirely of the cause of action arises is to fold its hands and keep quiet, we must say that such a situation will lead to the very negation of the principle of comity of Courts. 24. lt is clear therefore that before any High Court entertains a Writ Petition or passes an interim order which will affect a State or authority or person outside its jurisdiction, that Court must, in our opinion, first find out whether, apart from mere residence of its petitioner and the apprehension of arrest, any part of the cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction. We say this with great respect and deference to other High Courts in our country. 25. We say this with great respect and deference to other High Courts in our country. 25. Further, the case before us is not one where the State of Kerala has filed a writ petition here to a void an order of the Cateutta High Court It u a case where the petitioner who moved the Cateutta High Court earlier has got this writ petition filed on his behalf through his brother. I f the same party or person representing him move different courts one after another, the latter of the Courts here can, in our. view, even ask the party to withdraw the earlier case filed clsev/here, before graining relief. 26. We are compelled to say all this for the following reasons. We find that in some cases of grave offences under the Customs Act, when action is taken under the COFEPOSA Act by the State of Kerala, the parties who arc ordinarily residing in Kerala, have been suddenly claiming to be the residents of cither and aman Islands or West Bengal and are obtaining orders from the Cateutta High Court. While we have great respect for the orders of the Cateutta High Court, we are compelled to make these observations so that the effectiveness of the Kerala High Court as a Court of competent jurisdiction is not offended, much less paralysed. While making these observations, we mean no disrespect to the Cateutta High Court. 27. Therefore, the State of Kerala can, in our opinion, certainly point out to us that it is not bound by the order dated 13-11-1990 purporting to have been passed by the Cateulla High Court and which is not served on it so far. Neither the original nor summons have reached the State of Kerala in the last more than three years. Except a photocopy, the State has no idea of any order. When counsel in other Slates communicate with the State of Kerala to say that the High Court in which they are practising has passed orders against the State of Kerala, it is the duty of counsel to send, within reasonable time, a certified copy and not a photocopy. They have also to pay the process fee and see that the Writ Petition or stay petition/ orders in original arc served on the opposite side in another State. They have also to pay the process fee and see that the Writ Petition or stay petition/ orders in original arc served on the opposite side in another State. To just send a letter stating that an order is passed or to just send a photocopy and leave the matter at that for three years is-wholly unjustified. As stated earlier, the so-called certified copy of the stay order was produced before us for the first time during arguments and we have ordered an inquiry into its genuineness. 28. We, therefore, hold that the State of Kerala has good reasons to plead before us that it is not to be compelled to release the detenu merely because of an order purporting to be a certified copy of the stay order said to have been passed by the Cateutta High Court is, for the first time, produced after three years and when neither the original order of the Cateutta High Court nor the Court notices have been so far served on the State Government or its Officers. Point No. 2 is held accordingly. The Original Petition is dismissed. This will not, however, preclude the detenu from seeking relief on grounds other than those based on the alleged order of the Cateutta High Court. The inquiry into genuineness of the certified copy will be conducted by the Crime Branch of the State of Kerala as slated above.