2002 (5) TMI 769 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to entertain the writ petition.
2. The applicability of the exemption from payment of customs duty on spares and consumable items imported by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court:

The core issue addressed in the judgment is whether the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner, M/s. Indian Charge Chrome. The court extensively referred to several authoritative judgments to elucidate the principles governing territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court cited the judgment in *Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao* (AIR 1953 S.C. 210), which established that the High Court's writ jurisdiction is confined to its territorial limits, and the person or authority to whom the writ is issued must be within those territories.

Further, in *K.S. Rashid v. Income-tax Investigation Commission & Ors.* (AIR 1954 S.C. 207), it was reiterated that the High Court's power to issue writs is subject to the limitation that the writs cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction, and the person or authority must be within those territories.

The court also referred to *O.N.G.C. v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others* (1994) 4 SCC 711, which held that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial limits. However, trivial or unconnected events occurring within the jurisdiction do not confer jurisdiction on the court.

In *Everest Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Coal Controller & Ors.* (90 CWN 438), it was held that a writ petition can be maintained if the legal right claimed by the petitioner is infringed within the territorial limits of the court.

The court observed that the petitioner's registered office is in Bhubaneswar, Orissa, and the principal respondents, including the Collector of Central Excise & Customs and the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, are also located in Orissa. The Development Commissioner is located in Kolkata. Given these facts, the court noted that the main respondents reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

The court emphasized that a trivial or insignificant part of the cause of action arising in Delhi is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The cause of action must mainly and substantially arise at a place to determine territorial jurisdiction, as observed in *Sector Twenty-One Owners Welfare Association*.

The court concluded that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Orissa High Court, as the petitioner and most of the contesting respondents are located in Orissa. This would be convenient for all parties and avoid unnecessary expenditure and delay.

2. Exemption from Payment of Customs Duty:

The petitioner sought a direction to grant exemption from payment of customs duty on spares and consumable items imported for its captive power plant. The petition incorporated that the petitioner was entitled to such exemption up to 18th May 1999, as recommended by the Development Commissioner, Ministry of Commerce. Subsequent exemption up to 27-1-2000 required approval by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner.

However, the court did not delve into the merits of this issue due to the primary jurisdictional question. The court suggested that the petitioner should approach the Orissa High Court for adjudication on the matter.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court concluded that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The court advised the petitioner to approach the Orissa High Court, considering the location of the petitioner and the main respondents. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no orders as to costs.

← Previous Next →