9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt was delivered by:- Ajit Prakash Shah, Chief Justice:- This appeal is placed before this Bench in view of the reference made by the Division Bench. The appeal arises from an order of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition summarily on the ground that significant part of the cause of action could not be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court merely because the order under challenge had been passed by the appellate authority located within its territorial jurisdiction when the events leading to the filing of the proceedings before the appellate authority and the parties to such proceedings are located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The learned single judge relying on various judgments including Ambica Industries v. CCE [2007] 6 SCC 769 ; [2009] 20 VST 1, Bombay Snuff P. Ltd. v. Union of India [2005] 125 DLT 605, Rajkumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director of Enforcement [2008] 154 DLT 28 and West Coast Ingots P. Ltd.v. CCE [2007] 209 ELT 343 (Delhi) held that going by the strict provisions of clause (1) of article 226 pf the Constitution of India, this court had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent not concerned with merits of the disputes between the parties, for the matter has not yet been heard on merits. It is, therefore, not necessary to set out the facts in detail. It is, however, necessary to examine the scope and nature of proceedings before the Appellate Authority, which led to the filing of the petition in this court. Facts:- Respondent No. 3 purchased certain fire policies from the appellant for insuring the stock of red sanders wood in its godown located at Andhra Pradesh. On June 29, 1996, an accidental fire broke out at the said premises. On account of the alleged loss suffered due to the accidental fire, a claim for damages to the tune of Rs. 40.17 crores was preferred by respondent No. 3 against the appellant. This claim, however, was repudiated by the appellant vide letters dated May 21, 2001 and June 1, 2001, inter alia, on the ground of non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the fire policies. An appeal was filed by respondent No. 3 against the repudiation of its claim before the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short "the IRDA"), respondent No. 2 herein. Vide order dated July 31, 2002, two surveyors were appointed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus be maintainable before the Delhi High Court, within whose jurisdiction the Appellate Authority was constituted. The counsel relied upon the decision in Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal [1975] 2 SCC 671, wherein the court held that if the cause of action arose because of the appellate order or the revisional order which came to be passed at Lucknow, then the Lucknow Bench would have jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the areas in Oudh. He also referred to the decision in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [2004] 120 Comp Cas 672; [2004] 6 SCC 254 in which following the Sri Nasiruddin's case [1975] 2 SCC 671, it has been reiterated that when an order is passed by a court or Tribunal, a part of the cause of action arises at that place and as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the appellate authority. He referred to the Bomb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition de hors the question where the cause of action arose. He submitted that the focus in article 226(1) of the Constitution is on the location of the authority or person or Government to whom the writ is to be issued. He further submitted that article 226(2), which was introduced by the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution in 1963, is not a curtailment of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts, but an amplification of the same. Learned counsel also contended that the reference to the case of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532 in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [2004] 120 Comp Cas 672; [2004] 6 SCC 254, was in the context of article 226(2) and not article 226(1) as the question of exercise of jurisdiction under article 226(1) was not in issue in the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [2004] 120 Comp Cas 672 ; [2004] 6 SCC 254. On the other hand, Mr. Yashobant Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondent (respondent No. 3), submitted that as the substantial cause of action had arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities against whom the writ is issued would be in a dilemma. He urged that the IRDA being the original authority shall be bound by the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. The submission of counsel is, therefore, that the principle applied in Ambica Industries v. CCE [2007] 6 SCC 769 ; [2009] 20 VST 1, in respect of statutory appeals should also be applied in the matter of writ jurisdiction under article 226. In this connection he placed strong reliance on the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Bill, 1962, which was enacted as the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. He referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee [2008] 142 Comp Cas 731 ; [2008] 3 SCC 456, where the court held that if the entire cause of action has arisen outside the West Bengal State, mere location of the head office of the company in West Bengal would not confer jurisdiction upon, the Calcutta High Court to entertain a writ petition under article 226. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties [1985] 3 SCC 217, in which the court held that mere serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 213) : "The rule that cause of action attracts jurisdiction in suits is based on a statutory enactment and cannot apply to writs issuable under article 226 which makes no reference to any cause of action or where it arises, but insists on the presence of the person or authority 'within the territories' in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction". The argument of inconvenience was also not accepted because the plain meaning of article 226 was clear. Again this question arose in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532. A Bench of seven judges was called upon to consider the correctness or otherwise of the decision in Election Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Rao, AIR 1953 SC 210. The majority reaffirmed and approved the view taken by the court earlier in Election Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Rao, AIR 1953 SC 210, and held that the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir was right in not entertaining the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction. Speaking for the majority, Sinha C. J. observed (AIR page 538, paragraph 13):- "13. It seems to us therefore that it is not permissible to read in arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amendment) Act, 1976, clause (1A) was renumbered as clause (2). The underlying object of amendment was expressed in the following words:- 'Under the existing article 226 of the Constitution, the only High Court which has jurisdiction with respect to the Central Government is the Punjab High Court. This involves considerable hardship to litigants from distant places. It is, therefore, proposed to amend article 226. So that when any relief is sought against any Government, authority or person for any action taken, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises may also have jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions, orders or writs.' (emphasis supplied) The effect of the amendment was that the accrual of cause of action was made an additional ground to confer jurisdiction on a High Court under article 226 of the Constitution. As joint Committee observed:- 'This clause would enable the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is outside the territorial jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es jurisdiction', to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, 'within those territories' directions, orders or writs, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. Under clause (2) of article 226 the High Court may exercise its power conferred by clause (1) if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territory over which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such parson is not within those territories. On a plain reading of the aforesaid two clauses of article 226 of the Constitution it becomes dear that a High Court can exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. In order to conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition was that the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964, because the dispute arose at Bareilly in Rohilkhand Division, which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court, sitting at Allahabad, and it/had nothing to do with the Oudh territory. The matter was referred to the Full Bench. One of the questions before the Full Bench was whether the expression "...in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" used in the first proviso to article 14 of the High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, refers to the place where the case originated or to the place, of the sitting of the last court or authority whose decree or order is being challenged in the proceeding before the High Court. Another incidental question was whether the writ petition could have been entertained, heard and decided by the judges sitting at Lucknow. The Full Bench took a view that the Lucknow Bench had no jurisdiction to hear Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964. Allowing the appeal, a four judge bench of the Supreme Court held as follows (page 683):- "36. The meaning of the expression 'in respect of cases ari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in specified areas in Oudh and part outside the specified Oudh areas, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings either at Allahabad or Lucknow. The court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the court is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action. 38. ...Fourth, the expression 'cause of action' with regard to a civil matter means that it should be left to the litigant to institute cases at Lucknow Bench or at Allahabad Bench according to the cause of action arising wholly or in part within either of the areas. If the cause of action arises wholly within Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. Similarly, if the cause of action arises wholly outside the specified areas in Oudh then Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action in part arises in the specified Oudh areas and part of the cause of action arises outside the specified areas, it will be open to the litigant to frame the case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at Allahabad." The judgment in Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal [1975] 2 SCC 671, clearly holds that the place where an order is passed by an appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the appeal. The Full Bench held that the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Central Board of Revenue. On the second question, it held that as the Central Board of Revenue had merely dismissed the appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, the really operative qrder was the order of the Collector of Customs, which was located within the jurisdiction of the High Court and that, therefore, it had jurisdiction to pass an order against the Collector of Customs in spite of the fact that the order had been taken in appeal to the Central Board of Revenue, to which no writ could be issued. The Full Bench granted a certificate of appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal, held as follows (page 1126):- "4. The question therefore turns on whether the order of the original authority becomes merged in the order of the Appellate Authority even where the Appellate Authority merely dismisses the appeal without any modification of the order of the original Authority, it is obvious that when the appeal is made, the Appellate Authority can do one of three things, namely,- (i) it may reverse the order under appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal merged in the order of the Appellate Tribunal which is in Mumbai. Accordingly, the Mumbai Court would have jurisdiction in view of article 121 of the Constitution of India. The Court applying the ratio in Collector of Customs v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 1124, held that the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in Jaipur merged in the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai. The courts in Jaipur would have no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition which challenges the orders of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The Mumbai court, therefore, had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. In Indian Institute of Technology v. Dr. P. C. Jain [1991] 45 DLT 42, the order of compulsory retirement was passed in Mumbai and the petitioner was working at Mumbai. The statutory appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority at Delhi. A Division Bench of this Court, following the decision in Collector of Customs v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 1124, held as follows:- "(18) The law is, therefore, well-settled that when the original order merges in the appellate order, the writ is maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d clause (2) of article 226 being in pari materia, the decisions on interpretation of section 20(c) of the CPC shall apply to the writ proceedings also. Keeping in view the expressions used in clause (2) of article 226 of the Constitution of India, even if a small fraction of the cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the court, the court will have jurisdiction in the matter. The court then went on to state that passing of a legislation by itself does not confer any right to file a writ petition unless a cause of action arises therefor. Explaining the distinction between a legislation and executive action, the court observed (page 677 of 120 Comp Cas):- "A distinction between a legislation and executive action should be borne in mind while determining the said question. A Parliamentary legislation when receives the assent of the President of India and published in the Official Gazette, unless specifically excluded/ will apply to the entire territory of India. If passing of a legislation gives rise to a cause of action, a writ petition questioning the constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done because a cause of action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. In appropriate cases, the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenient. The decision in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [2004] 120 Comp Cas 672 ; (2004] 6 SCC 254, thus affirms the view taken in Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal [1975] 2 SCC 671, that an order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action and a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the appellate authority. Further, when a part of the cause of action arises within one or the Other High Court, it will be for the petitioner to choose his forum. The same line of reasoning was adopted in an earlier judgment in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra [2000] 7 SCC 640, where Thomas J. in his concurring judgment observed (page 652):- "34. When the Constitution was framed, article 226, as it originally stood therein provided that:- 'every High Court shall have power, throughout ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its to any Government authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action; wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.' 37. The object of the amendment by inserting clause (2) in the article was to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court in Election Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Rao, AIR 1953 SC 210 and to restore the view held by the High Courts in the decisions cited above. Thus the power conferred on the High Courts under article 226 could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which 'the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises' and it is no matter that the seat of the authority concerned is outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High Court. The amendment is thus aimed at widening the width of the area for reaching the writs issued by different High Courts." The learned single judge in deciding the issue of territorial jurisdiction has relied upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be correct. Before dilating on the said proposition of law it may be noticed that the decision of a Tribunal would be binding on the assessing authority. If the situs of the Appellate Tribunal should be considered to be the determinative factor, a decision rendered by the Tribunal shall be binding on all the authorities exercising its jurisdiction under the said Tribunal. 13. The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, exercises jurisdiction over all the three States. In all the three States there are High Courts. In the event, the aggrieved person is treated to be the dominus litis, as a result whereof, he elects to file the appeal before one or the other High Court, the decision of the High Court shall be binding only on the authorities which are within its jurisdiction. It will only be of persuasive value on the authorities functioning under a different jurisdiction. If the binding authority of a High Court does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction and the decision of one High Court would not be a binding precedent for other High Courts or courts or Tribunals outside its territorial jurisdiction, some sort of judicial anarchy shall come into play. An assessee, affected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VST 1, is thus not applicable to writ petitions arising out of orders of Tribunals. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Yashobant Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, in State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties [1985] 3 SCC 217 and Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee [2008] 142 Comp Cas 731; [2008] 3 SCC 456, have no application to the present case where the appellate authority whose order is impugned in the writ petition is located within the jurisdiction of this court. The judgment of the Judicial Committee in Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi (70 IA 129), is a pre-constitution judgment and is of no assistance to the respondent. As held in Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal [1975] 2 SCC 671, even where part of the cause of action arose, it would be open to the litigant, who is the dominus litis to have his forum conveniens. In the present case, since the Appellate Authority is situated at New Delhi, the Delhi High Court has the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned single judge to apply the principle of forum conveniens to refuse to exercise the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of the contesting respondent being situated within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Though the petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution, it cannot be lost sight of that jurisdiction in such cases under article 226 is overlapping with article 227. Article 227 is dear in this regard. The power of superintendence over Tribunals is vested in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal is situated. In that light of the matter also, it cannot be said that only insignificant or minuscule part of the cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of this court. The appellate authority in the present case having passed the order which is impugned in the petition, being situated within the jurisdiction of this court, even if the cause of action doctrine were to be invoked, substantial part of the cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of this court only. Even the language of the impugned order giving rise to the cause of action in the writ petition, discloses significant cause of action to have accrued within the jurisdiction of this court. This court while deciding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
