Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) upheld, but petitioner directed to approach earlier forum on judicial propriety

HC held that, after the Fifteenth Amendment and insertion of Article 226(2), its territorial jurisdiction depends on two factors: (i) whether the person or authority is within its territory, and/or (ii) whether the cause of action arises wholly or in part within such territory. On facts, HC concluded it technically possessed jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. However, as the impugned order was passed by the Collector, Dhanbad, and related proceedings had earlier reached the Patna HC, principles of judicial propriety required the petitioner to approach that forum. The appeal was disposed of without examining merits, leaving parties free to agitate all issues before the appropriate HC.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court
2. Merits of the Writ Petition
3. Status Quo of Possession

Summary:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The primary issue raised by the appellant was that the writ petition was not maintainable as the High Court of Calcutta had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. The order impugned in the writ petition was passed by the Collector, Dhanbad, Bihar, in a proceeding u/s the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. The appellant argued that no part of the cause of action arose within the State of West Bengal, and the properties in question were situated in Bihar. The Court, however, held that under Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution, it had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition since the respondent, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., had its office within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court must consider whether the persons or authorities to whom orders and writs are to be issued are situated within its territorial jurisdiction and whether the cause of action, either wholly or in part, arose within its jurisdiction.

2. Merits of the Writ Petition:
The writ petition challenged the order of the Collector, Dhanbad, which directed the writ petitioner to make over possession of the building to the appellant. The Court noted that the Patna High Court had previously dealt with a vital aspect of the matter in F.A. No. 302 of 1963 and had arrived at a definite finding that the right, title, and interest in the property in question had vested in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. The Court held that it would not be proper to interpret the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, and to go into questions regarding the vesting of the property or the mining lease under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The Court opined that these questions should have been raised before the Patna High Court, which had earlier dealt with the matter.

3. Status Quo of Possession:
The Court observed that the writ petitioner had regained possession of the Cinema Hall in terms of the judgment dated February 8, 1991, and no steps were taken by Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. to prevent the same. The Court directed that the parties should maintain the status quo in respect of possession of the Cinema Hall for a period of one month to enable the writ petitioner to move the appropriate forum.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed on the ground of jurisdiction, and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge were set aside. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the writ petitioner to move the Patna High Court against the impugned order. The Court did not go into the merits of the case and allowed the parties to agitate all points before the appropriate forum. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the status quo was to be maintained for one month.

---