2014 (9) TMI 1231 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - Territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the petition - HELD THAT - If the High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition it has no jurisdiction to decide the case on merits also. It is well settled that the question of territorial jurisdiction should be decided at the threshold specially when the objections is taken at the earliest point of time. When the question of jurisdiction was raised in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS ADANI EXPORTS LTD. 2001 (10) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court has held that they would decide the jurisdiction first and then only they proceed to go into the question of merits under Order XIV Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code. It is a settled law that if an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Court is raised at the earliest point of time the said issue being purely question of law ought to be decided as a preliminary issue. If it is found that the petitioner has approached the Court having jurisdiction then only the Court can go into the merits. If the Court has no jurisdiction the matter ends there. The approach of the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.

In this case, the High Court heard an appeal against an order directing the final hearing of a petition. The Revenue argued that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and there was no cause of action for the petitioner to maintain the writ petition. The Court noted the Revenue's contentions and the interim order allowing future import of gold Dore bars. The Court emphasized that the interim order was subject to change and the Revenue could file for its vacation. The Court observed that the question of territorial jurisdiction should be decided at the outset, citing a Supreme Court ruling. The Court referred to Order XIV Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, which mandates deciding jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The Court held that if the Court lacks jurisdiction, the case should not proceed to the merits. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous order, and directed the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction to be decided first before further proceedings in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge was instructed to decide the preliminary issue promptly before proceeding with the case.