2016 (1) TMI 1422 - HC - Indian Laws

Territorial Jurisdiction - meaning of the term, cause of action - HELD THAT - There is nothing in the petition so as to reveal the facts that form part of cause of action regarding territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition by this Court. On comparing the facts of the present petition with the facts of the afore cited case of Alchemist Ltd. another, it would reveal that in the said case though some of the things had happened in Chandigarh, viz. the officers of the Bank visited Chandigarh for negotiation and deposited the amount in the State Bank at Chandigarh pursuant to the negotiation, however, in the present case any such cause event has not taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. No part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition by this Bench - the writ petition is rejected on the sole ground of territorial jurisdiction.

Summary

Issues:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petition regarding the public notice issued by the Narcotics Commissioner.
2. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India due to categorization of importers into two categories.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to challenge a public notice issued by the Narcotics Commissioner regarding the import of poppy seeds, claiming it violated public policy and the constitutional guarantee of equality. The High Court deliberated on its territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The petitioner argued that since their business was based in Nagpur and adversely affected by the notice, the court had jurisdiction. However, the respondent contended that no part of the cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction. The court referred to various judgments, including the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia, emphasizing that even a small part of the cause of action within the court's jurisdiction could confer territorial jurisdiction. Ultimately, the court found that the facts presented did not establish territorial jurisdiction, leading to the rejection of the petition solely on this ground.

2. The petitioner also contended that the categorization of importers into two groups by the Narcotics Commissioner, based on import history, was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court, while focusing on the territorial jurisdiction issue, refrained from delving into the merits of the discrimination claim. The judgment highlighted the importance of the 'ratio decidendi' in legal decisions, emphasizing that even slight factual variances could lead to different outcomes. The court referenced the case of Alchemist Limited v. State Bank of Sikkim, which discussed the accrual of cause of action as a basis for jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, in the absence of sufficient facts establishing discriminatory treatment within its jurisdiction, the court did not address the Article 14 violation claim in detail, limiting its decision to the issue of territorial jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the petition primarily due to the lack of territorial jurisdiction, without delving into the substantive claims of discrimination under Article 14. The judgment underscored the significance of establishing a clear nexus between the cause of action and the court's jurisdiction, as outlined in relevant legal precedents.