9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots [2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT] recognised this doctrine and had in fact referred to some judgements rendered by the High Court of Calcutta to opine that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merits. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. Therefore, the argument that this Court can entertain the writ petition since some part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi, would not, ipso facto, confer jurisdiction on this Court, if one were to apply the authoritative ratio above. Whether this Court would be compelled to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition? - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Goa [2023 (3) TMI 683 - SUPREME COURT] was examining a case where the State of Goa had levied a tax in respect of lottery business being run by the respondent before it in Goa. However, the respondent company was located in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 13029/1985 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India; v) In the alternative and without prejudice to the above prayers, issue a writ, order or direction quashing the DGFT Notification No.68/2023 dated 07.03.2024, if and insofar as it purports to prohibit the supply of CPC by domestic calciners to SEZ units; vi) Pending the captioned Petition, stay the Rejection Letter dated 05.02.2025; vii) Pending the captioned Petition, permit the Petitioners to continue to supply CPC to SEZ units; viii) Pending the final hearing and disposal of the present Writ Petition, permit the Petitioners to import requisite quantities of RPC and direct the Respondents to further issue necessary directions to the relevant authorities to treat the shipments received thereunder as exempt from any and all import duties as if covered by an Advance Authorisation;" 2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that by virtue of the order dated 09.10.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the import of 1.4 MMT of Raw Petroleum Coke (hereafter referred to as "RPC") per annum in the Public Interest Litigation bearing W.P.(C) No. 13029/1985 captioned M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India. It is informed that the Foreign Trad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grieved by the said rejection, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking prayers as abovementioned. 4. On 28.02.2025, Ms. Bobde, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present petition on the anvil of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the present petition. On the prima facie satisfaction that though there may be a part of cause of action arising within the local limits of its territorial jurisdiction, yet, this Court may not entertain the present petition predicated on the "Doctrine of Forum Conveniens", the Court had directed the parties to address arguments on the said issue. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:- 5. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset drew our attention to clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to submit that there is neither a bar nor a prohibition for the High Court where the seat of authority is located to entertain any writ petition, if even a small part of cause of action has arisen. He emphasizes that in the present case, the prayers as well as the facts as pleaded w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of ADGFT at Delhi on the impugned rejection letter coupled with the fact that the order passed by CAQM in compliance whereof the DGFT amended the import policy vide its Notification dated 07.03.2024 which was at Delhi, would confer the proper and appropriate territorial jurisdiction upon this Court. 8. He also emphasizes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted permission to the CAQM to formulate guidelines. In support of the said contention, learned senior counsel drew attention of this Court to order dated 10.10.2023, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowing the petitioner to place its application for consideration before the CAQM. Learned senior counsel also referred to the Notification no.68/2023 dated 07.03.2024 and read the revised policy condition 6(b)(iii) to impress upon this Court as to how the DGFT has materially tweaked the permission granted by CAQM for export to SEZ Units. It is in this context, the learned senior counsel referred to prayer (v) of the present writ petition to contend that the said notification which was issued at Delhi by the DGFT itself is a subject matter of challenge. 9. He also stoutly urges that there would possibly be no prejudice, muc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.; 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162. She vociferously contends that apart from the fact that clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution does possibly confer jurisdiction on more than one High Court, but the doctrine of forum conveniens also has to be applied to all such cases where there may arise a doubt regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court or other High Courts. Moreover, according to her, the ratio laid down in Sterling Agro (supra) is binding upon this Court which necessarily has to be adhered to scrupulously. Learned counsel has taken us through various relevant paragraphs of the said judgement to support her contentions. 13. That apart, learned counsel also relies upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr.; (2004) 6 SCC 254, particularly paragraph 30. According to her, Kusum Ingots (supra) is a direct authority for the proposition of territorial jurisdiction arising in the present petition. She emphatically urges that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgement laid the foundation of examination of doctrine of "forum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1908"). The framers were acutely aware that apart from the territorial jurisdiction conferred upon a competent Civil Court exercising its powers in accordance with sub section (a) and (b) of section 20, CPC, 1908, it would be necessary to confer jurisdiction to such other places where a "cause of action" "wholly or in part" has arisen. The words, "cause of action", for the purpose of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for all intent and purport, may be ascribed similar meaning and effect as envisaged under sub section (c) of section 20 of the CPC, 1908. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. vs. Kalyan Banerjee; (2008) 3 SCC 456. The phraseology used in sub section (c) of section 20 of the CPC, 1908 and clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being pari materia, the import and purport of sub section (c) of section 20 of the CPC, 1908 may be made applicable to the writ proceedings also. This appears to be the intention expressed in Kusum Ingots (supra). What constitutes a "cause of action" and whether it has arisen "wholly or in part" therefore, has to be necessarily e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia was inserted by virtue of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1963 as clause (1A). It was however, subsequently renumbered as clause (2) vide the Forty Second Constitutional Amendment in the year 1976. This is how it stands even today. The rationale behind such amendment is captured succinctly in the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Fifteenth Amendment Bill, 1962. The same reads thus: "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 arise may also have jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions, orders or writs." Further, the then Law Minister while introducing the aforesaid Bill elaborated and emphasised the reason behind introduction of such amendment. The reasons read thus: "We are amending Article 226 which has become very necessary in view of certain decisions of the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Vernor vs. Elvies; 6 Disct. Of Dec. 4788 (1610). Thereafter, it appears to have been adopted by the American Courts which developed it further and which was also applied by the Courts in England. We are refraining from referring to the judgements rendered by foreign courts in extenso as it is neither relevant nor germane to the lis. 20. Coming closer to home, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots (supra) recognised this doctrine and had in fact referred to some judgements rendered by the High Court of Calcutta (Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, 1941 SCC OnLine Cal 247 and Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal, 1945 SCC OnLine Cal 145) and High Court of Delhi (New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, 1993 SCC OnLine Del 564) to opine that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merits. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. Therefore, the argument that this Court can entertain the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xercising power, authority and jurisdiction over the geographical area within which the petitioner was located, i.e., at Hyderabad. As such, the authority conferred upon the Regional Authority was restricted to such geographical area and not beyond. It is not the case of the petitioner and admittedly so, that the Regional Authority was conferred power to exercise such authority pan India. Thus, the mere appending of his signature at a particular location would not, ipso facto, be the primordial consideration while examining the issue of "cause of action" or territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, for all intents and purpose, the Regional Authority had rejected the application seeking Advance Authorisation at Hyderabad, even though he was seated at Delhi. 25. So far as the next submission predicated on the prayer in clause (v) is concerned, in our considered opinion, the same is unpersuasive and is unmerited. This submission is not available to the petitioner in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots (supra) in para nos. 18 to 23. The same read thus: "18. The facts pleaded in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e v. Gill, (1873) LR 8 CP 107] that "cause of action means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court", has been accepted by this Court in a couple of decisions. It is axiomatic that without a cause, there cannot be any action. However, in the context of a writ petition, what would constitute such "cause of action" is the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed. 17. Determination of the question as to whether the facts pleaded constitute a part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, would necessarily involve an exercise by the High Court to ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, constitute a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. In so determining, it is the substance of the matter that is relevant. It, therefore, follows that the party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the High Court to decide the dispute and that, at least, a part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other prayers, and effect and consequence of the relief of quashing the Notification No. 68/2023 dated 07.03.2024 would only be at Hyderabad or Vishakhapatnam or at Jharsuguda, but surely not at Delhi. In fact there would be no consequence at Delhi qua the petitioner. In Sterling Agro (supra), the Full Bench of this Court, while relying upon Kusum Ingots (supra) and Ambica Industries vs. CCE; (2007) 6 SCC 769, had authoritatively laid down the binding opinion that the Court has to apply the principle of forum conveniens on the anvil that merely because some cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, would not itself constitute to be the determining factor compelling the Court to entertain the matter. Para nos.33 to 35 of Sterling Agro (supra) read thus: "33. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the convenience of all the parties before it. The convenience in its ambit and sweep would include the existence of more appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for just adjudication of the controversy and suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a lesser strength. Ignoring the judgment of the Full Bench, in our view, would undermine its soundness. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 961. 27. Yet another argument, though addressed weakly, was the fact of the petitioner having filed a writ petition before this Court which was entertained and no similar grounds of objection were taken by the respondents and therefore this petition may also be treated as maintainable. We have not found any material placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate this argument. Yet, we are examining the said submission for what it is worth. In our considered opinion, merely because the respondents earlier had not objected to the jurisdiction and this Court had entertained the previous writ petition, would not by itself bar the objections being raised now or being considered by this Court. It is trite, there is no estoppel against law. The law being the one declared and enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots (supra) and the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Sterling Agro (supra) particularly the consideration of the doctrine of "forum con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
