9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport of spares and consumables subsequently upto 27-1-2000 was available on approval by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner, Ministry of Commerce, Nizam Palace, Kolkatta. The petitioner company and other main contesting respondents are located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court. 3. Before we scrutinize detailed facts and questions of law involved in this petition we would like to reflect on the legal position as crystalised by a series of authoritative judgments regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining this petition. 4. In Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao reported as AIR 1953 S.C. 210 the Apex Court held that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. Secondly, the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be within those territories which clearly implies that they must be amenable to the jurisdiction either by residence or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed by him has been either infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondents. Such infringement may take place by causing him legal injury or threat thereof. Accordingly, when the impugned act of the respondent takes effect within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court, the Court may entertain the writ petition of the person aggrieved notwithstanding that the respondents have the offices or residences outside its territorial jurisdiction. An order which has been made by an authority or person at a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court but is given effect to against the petitioner within the said High Court's jurisdiction gives rise to at least a part of cause of action at the place where it is implemented. When an order becomes effectively only when it is communicated or served, the service of the order or receipt of a notice thereof would form part of cause of action for filing a writ petition by the person aggrieved thereby. 8. In Sita Ram Singhania v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubhishi Ltd. and Other - (1999) 4 SCC 382, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that We see no reason why the High Courts in such matters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to enforce. If a writ or injunction is disobeyed, the only way to enforce it is to take proceedings against the guilty party for disobedience of the order. If that party is outside the jurisdiction of the Court, then the Court has no power to enforce obedience of the injunction or writ issued by the Court. The Courts, therefore, do not issue writs where they have no power to enforce their obedience. If a writ is issued to some Officer at New Delhi and he ignores it, the Allahabad High Court cannot proceed in contempt against such Officer, as he is outside the jurisdiction of the Court. 11. A Division Bench of Hyderabad High Court in C. Shrikishen v. State of Hyderabad Ors. reported as AIR 1956 Hyderabad 186 observed that a person or an authority against which a writ under Article 226 is sought to be directed must be within the territories as a condition of the High Court being empowered to issue such a writ. Where, therefore, several of the respondents against whom writs are sought to be issued are residing outside the territorial limits of the High Court, it has no jurisdiction to issue writs against them. 12. A Division Bench of Punjab High Court in Ebrahim Aboobaker A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the officials at Delhi to move applications to vacate stay where it becomes necessary to file such applications. 14. In State of Rajasthan Ors. v. M/s. Swaika Properties Anr. reported as AIR 1985 S.C. 1289 the court observed : It is to be deeply regretted that despite a series of decisions of this Court deprecating the practice prevalent in the High Court of passing such interlocutory orders for the mere asking, the learned Single Judge should have passed the impugned ad interim ex parte prohibitory order the effect of which, as the learned Attorney General rightly complains, was virtually to bring a standstill a development scheme of the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur viz. Civil Lines Extension Scheme, irrespective of the fact whether or not the High Court had any territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such arbitrary exercise of power by the High Court at the public expense reacts against the development and prosperity of the country and is clearly detrimental to the national interest. 15. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India Ors. reported as AIR 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts registered office at Bomikhal, P.O. Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, Orissa. The principal respondents in this petition are also residing/located outside the territorial limits of this Court. 19. Respondent No. 3, Collector of Central Excise Customs, Orissa, is located at Bhubaneswar, District Khurda, Orissa. 20. Similarly, respondent No. 5, Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, is also located at Bhubaneswar, Orissa. 21. Respondent No. 6, Development Commissioner, is located at Kolkatta. 22. According to the petitioner, this court has jurisdiction because Union of India (Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue) and Central Board of Excise and Customs are located in Delhi. From this criteria all the petitions from throughout the country should be entertained by this court alone. In response to the court query even the learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute this fact that the Orissa High Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. 23. It is abundantly clear that a trivial or insignificant part of the cause of action arising at a particular place would not be enough to confer writ jurisdiction. It is the cause of action main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
