Sumersingh's complaint named former Gujarat High Court judge (now principal judge, city civil court, Ahmedabad) R R Jain, the then Banaskantha DSP Sanjeev Bhatt, Phootarmal Jain and some police personnel. He had alleged that a conspiracy was hatched to force him to vacate a shop in Pali, whose power of attorney was Jain's relative Phootarmal.

A division bench of Justice C K Thakker and Justice A M Kapadia found the LPAs unmaintainable. ``We also hold that even if Letters Patent Appeals are competent and maintainable, the learned single judge was right in holding that the High Court of Gujarat has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter and Letters Patent Appeals cannot be maintained,'' the bench observed.

The bench also refused the appellants' counsel permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, saying the matter had been decided on ``well-settled principles of law''. However, the bench ordered that ad-interim relief granted earlier would continue till November 30.

According to Sumersingh's complaint with Kotwali police station, Pali, the accused arranged to file a complaint under NDPS Act against him at Palanpur on April 30, 1996. The complaint at Palanpur mentioned that Sumersingh stayed in room No 305 of Hotel Lajwanti on April 29, 1996, and opium was seized from the room. During May 2-3, 1996, PI I B Vyas, PSI Yajnik and other policemen whisked Sumersingh away from his Pali residence, the complaint says. But a Gujarat police team was intercepted by Kotwali police. At Kotwali police station, Gujarat police personnel, in civil dress, could not produce the police diary, it was alleged. Sumersingh was taken to Palanpur after an entry was made in the Rojnama (daily report) at Kotwali station.

According to Sumersingh's complaint, Bhatt asked him to vacate the shop immediately failing which he would face proceedings under the NDPS Act. Bhatt told him that Jain was interested in getting the shop vacated, the complaint alleged. Finally, an agreement was reached under which Sumersingh was to be released and the case against him disposed of if the shop's possession was handed over, it was alleged.