Territorial jurisdiction and absence of statutory review power shaped the writ challenge to a banking licence cancellation order.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 may arise where the impugned appellate order is made, since that place can form part of the cause of action; the Delhi High Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the writ. A quasi-judicial appellate authority has no inherent power of review and can exercise second review only if the statute expressly or by necessary implication confers it. As Section 22(6) of the Banking Regulation Act gives finality to the appeal structure and contains no power of second review, the appellate authority's second review order was without jurisdiction and non est. The challenge to the licence cancellation accordingly did not succeed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the order of the appellate authority; (ii) Whether the appellate authority had power to entertain and allow a second review petition against its earlier order cancelling the licence.

Issue (i): Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the order of the appellate authority.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the Court's jurisdiction. An order passed by an appellate authority at a particular place forms part of the cause of action, and the situs of that authority, together with the place where hearings were held, is material. The statutory provision relied upon by the appellant concerning the definition of High Court in banking winding-up matters did not govern proceedings under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and could not curtail constitutional writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction, and the objection to maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority had power to entertain and allow a second review petition against its earlier order cancelling the licence.

Analysis: The power of review is not inherent in a quasi-judicial authority and must be conferred by statute either expressly or by necessary implication. Section 22(6) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 gives finality to the decision under the statutory appeal structure, and no provision in the Act conferred a power of second review on the appellate authority. An order passed without jurisdiction is void in law and cannot survive.

Conclusion: The appellate authority had no power to entertain the second review petition, and its order was non est.

Final Conclusion: The appellate judgment upholding quashing of the second review order was sustained, and the challenge to the cancellation of licence did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial authority has no power of review unless such power is expressly or by necessary implication conferred by statute, and for writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the place where the impugned appellate order is made may furnish part of the cause of action.

---