9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to territories where the act is alleged to be done. 2. Competency of High Court to issue a writ of certiorari to a person exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions in territories outside the jurisdiction of the Court. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order issued by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Shillong. The order in question involved the confiscation of gold and silver in Agartala, Tripura. The issue raised was whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction over acts done in territories outside its jurisdiction. The rules under the Central Excise and Salt Act of 1944 specified that the Collector for Assam, Tripura, and Manipur was the Collector of Central Excise at Shillong, where the Deputy Collector in question was stationed. It was argued that the High Court's jurisdiction extended to territories where the officer resided, but the Court held that jurisdiction was limited to acts within its territorial jurisdiction. 2. The preliminary objection raised was that the High Court lacked competency to issue a writ of certiorari in this case as the act of seizing the gold and silver occurred outside the Court's jurisdiction. The argument was made that the officer's residence in Shillong did not confer jurisdiction on the High Court. The Court emphasized that for the High Court to exercise powers under Article 226, the act must be done within its territorial jurisdiction, and the person against whom the writ is sought must have acted within those territories. Since the Deputy Collector's actions took place outside the Court's jurisdiction, the High Court was not competent to issue the writ. Therefore, the petition was returned to the petitioner for presentation to the appropriate Court. 3. Justice Deka agreed with the Chief Justice's analysis, supporting the decision that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application under Article 226 due to the acts being performed outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction. The judgment highlighted the importance of territorial limits in the exercise of judicial functions by the High Court under the Constitution of India, emphasizing that jurisdiction is confined to acts within the territories over which the Court has authority.
|
