9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction 2. Forum Conveniens Summary: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The primary issue in the appeal was whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the State Government's decision to grant a prospecting license to respondent no. 3. The appellant argued that since the Central Government's revisional order, a significant part of the cause of action, was passed in New Delhi, the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction. The appellant cited the MMDR Act and MCDR, 1988, emphasizing that the Central Government's approval was obtained at every stage. The appellant also referenced the Vishnu Security Services case, which held that a writ would be maintainable in both the courts where the original and appellate authorities are situated. 2. Forum Conveniens: The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of forum conveniens, stating that the Delhi High Court was not the convenient forum. The appellant contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the principles laid down in Vishnu Security Services and Jan Chetna, which allowed the petitioner to choose the forum. The respondent argued that the Single Judge had considered identical arguments and relied on the principle that the High Court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction if a substantive part of the cause of action arises outside its territorial jurisdiction. The judgment referenced the Full Bench decision in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd., which emphasized the doctrine of forum conveniens, stating that even if a minuscule part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a court, the court may refuse to entertain the writ petition if it is not the convenient forum. The Full Bench clarified that the situs of the appellate or revisional authority is not the determinative factor and that the High Court should consider the convenience of all parties involved. The court concluded that the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for refusing to entertain the writ petition were cogent and germane, as the matter had a local flavor, with the mine situated in Maharashtra and the primary decision taken by the State of Maharashtra. The court held that it was inconvenient for the Delhi High Court to entertain the writ and that the Bombay High Court was better equipped to deal with the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
