9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : "c. The objections regarding territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition shall be decided as a preliminary issue." Hence, this Court has heard the learned Advocates regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as to whether present writ petition would be maintainable before this Court. 3. Perusal of the averments made in the writ petition does not suggest of petitioner having made any averment in the writ petition with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court and maintainability of writ petition before this Court. However, respondents having appeared and filed their statement of objections have specifically raised a plea in Paragraph 3 of their statement of objections contending inter alia that in view of Article 226(2) of Constitution of India being attracted to the facts on hand, this Court cannot exercise power vested in it in relation to territories which is beyond its jurisdiction and no part of cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of this Court and as such it is contended that present writ petition is not maintainable before the Court. 4. Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the statement of objections and contended tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an High Court Advocates' Association v. Union of India. (iv) Order dated 20-12-2013 in W.P. No. 37302/2013. (v) Order dated 30-8-2010 in W.P. No. 19286/2010. (vi) Order dated 5-7-2013 in W.P. No. 28217/2013. (vii) Order dated 28-11-2013 in W.P. Nos. 53219-53667/2013. 6. Per contra, Sri N.R. Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents would reiterate the contentions raised by respondents in their statement of objections and prays for rejection of present writ petition on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to examine correctness or otherwise of the impugned communication since no part of cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of this Court. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon following judgments : (i) (1994) 4 SCC 711 - Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others. (ii) (1998) 9 SCC 576 = 1998 (100) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.) - Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. (iii) (2002) 1 SCC 567 = 2001 (134) E.L.T. 596 (S.C.) - Union of India and Others v. Adani Exports Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No. 12/2012, dated 17-3-2012 (Annexure-A) has stood complied. 10. Respondent has filed its statement of objections traversing the petition averments and denying the same, except to the extent expressly admitted therein. Respondent has specifically raised an objection with regard to lack of jurisdiction, contending inter alia that in view of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot exercise power vested upon it in relation to territories which is beyond its jurisdiction. It is also contended that cause of action in the present case wholly arises at New Delhi, since entire consignment of import of Gold Dore Bars by the petitioner took place at Customs Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi and the notification - Annexure-A pressed into service as well as the impugned communication have been issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (I&G), New Delhi who is having office at New Customs House, New Delhi and as such, no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. On this amongst others respondent has sought for dismissal of writ petition. Discussion on above point and findings thereon 11. In order to delve upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om direction or writ is issued is being not within said territories. If the petitioner is able to demonstrate that at least a part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, present writ petition will have to be held as surviving for consideration as otherwise not. Hence, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction, this Court will have to take into consideration all the facts pleaded in support of cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon any enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words, question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts of each case and there cannot be any straight jacket formula in this regard. 13. A judgment or an order passed by the Court having no jurisdiction would be nullity. Cause of action includes all those material facts necessary to be alleged and proved by the petitioner/plaintiff having nexus with the relief sought for from the Court. The cause of action cannot be confused or mistaken with the forum of conveniens which the plaintiff/petitioner chooses. Cause of action or part of cause of action would have to be discer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different High Courts." 15. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that legal right claimed by him has prima facie been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Courts' jurisdiction in the case of Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Another reported in (2006) 6 SCC 207 it has been held as under : "7. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof." It has also been held in the said judgment by Hon'ble Apex Court that cause of action means a group of operative facts which give rise to one or more basis of suing vide Paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iamentary legislation was under consideration and on facts it came to be held that High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition. 16. In the event of writ petition being filed questioning constitutional validity of a parliamentary legislation, whether interim or final, keeping in view provisions contained in sub-article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it will have to be necessarily held that issuance of writ under clause (1) of Article 226 will have the effect of it throughout territory of India which would be subject to applicability of such Act and as such petition would be maintainable before any Court or in other words, issue of territorial jurisdiction would be inconsequential. 17. Hon'ble Apex Court was also examining the issue regarding Forum Conveniens in Kusum Ingots case referred to supra namely, whether part of cause of action or fraction of cause of action if having arisen in a particular State would entitle the party to seek for relief before the said Court within whose territorial jurisdiction High Court is located and by applying doctrine of Forum Conveniens it was held even if a part of cause of action arises, it will ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. [AIR 2002 SC 126] in the context of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, it has been explained that each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned. A similar question was examined in State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Swaika Properties [AIR 1985 SC 1289]. Here certain properties belonging to a company which had its registered office in Calcutta were sought to be acquired in Jaipur and a notice under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act was served upon the company at Calcutta. The question which arose for consideration was whether the service of notice at the head office of the company a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outside the areas in Oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of the person applying for a writ. In such case an adverse appellate order might be the cause of action. The expression "cause of action" is well-known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises wholly within the specified Oudh areas, it is indisputable that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter, if the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas in Oudh it would be open to the litigant who is the dominus litis to have his forum conveniens. The litigant has the right to go to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. In such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular Court. The choice is by reason of the jurisdiction of the Court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. Similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen part within specified areas in Oudh and part outside the specified Oudh areas, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch seat, shall be an issue to be decided in an individual case by the Judge or Judges hearing the matter if a question may arise in that regard. The impugned explanation appended to the Order of the Chief Justice dated 23-12-1976 runs counter to the Presidential Order and in a sense it is an inroad into the jurisdiction of the Judges hearing a particular case or cases, pre-empting a decision to be given in the facts of individual case whether it can be said to have arisen in the territory of a particular District. The High Court is right in taking the view which it has done." 21. Thus, keeping the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments, it will have to be examined as to whether this Court is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in question on merits and whether cause of action pleaded in the petition either wholly or partly would give rise for cause of action for the petitioner to maintain present writ petition and whether on account of petitioner's registered office as well as Corporate office being located at Bangalore is sufficient to hold this Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ petition. In other words, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly establishes that the Writ Petition is maintainable. The relief claimed is with respect to Annexure "G". The said Annexure "G" having been addressed to the petitioner at Bangalore, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction. These facts are borne from records and cannot be denied. Hence, the entire cause of action or part of the cause of action has arisen in Bangalore, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. It is clear that this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction. The judgment in Union of India and Others v. Adani Exports relied upon by the respondent is wholly inapplicable on the facts of this case, as none of the facts as set out there in arise herein. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that : (a) The registered office and the corporate office of the petitioner are at Bangalore. (b) The petitioner carry on their business of import from Bangalore. (c) Orders for import are placed and executed at Bangalore. (d) Documents and payment for import are sent/made at Bangalore. (e) The letter of the respondent No. 2 (Annexure "G") was addressed to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the addressee or consignee as indicated in the said Air Way bill produced by petitioner reads as under : "RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED PLOT NOS. 80-81, SECTOR-7 IIE SIDCUL, PANTNAGAR UTTARAKHAND INDIA-263145" Said Air Cargo consigned to petitioner has been unloaded or delivered at Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi. Customs House Agent of petitioner has got cleared this consignment at Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi and on such clearance of goods by the Customs authorities, petitioner through its transport agent has transported the consignment to its refinery at Uttarakhand for processing these Gold Dore Bars so imported. Thus, it would emerge from this chain of events that importation has taken place from Australia to New Delhi, goods are cleared at New Delhi and consignment after clearance from the Customs authorities at Delhi has been transported to Uttarakhand and only issue involved in the present writ petition relates to importation of consignment from Australia to Delhi. Thus, when facts on hand are examined in this factual background, the moot question that would arise for consideration would be as to whether 'cause of action' for filing of this writ petition has arisen eith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
