Territorial jurisdiction and retrospective circulars: Indore Bench writ maintainable, and later certification requirement could not block clearance.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) was upheld where integral parts of the cause of action, including business, communication, payment and commercial links, arose within the Indore Bench's limits, so the writ was maintainable there. A later circular could not retrospectively impose an additional certification condition on imported consignments that had already been contracted for and dispatched before the circular came into force, and withholding clearance on that basis was unjustified. The challenge to territorial jurisdiction therefore failed, retrospective application of the circular was rejected, and clearance of the covered consignments was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the Indore Bench on the basis that part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the impugned circular dated 7-11-2014 could operate retrospectively to govern the imported consignments and justify withholding their clearance.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the Indore Bench on the basis that part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India depends on whether a part of the cause of action has arisen within the Court's limits. The relevant factual links included the petitioner's business and contractual activity at Indore, communication and payment-related acts at Indore, and the commercial nexus of the transaction with that place. The presence of the goods at ports outside the State did not exclude jurisdiction where integral facts giving rise to the lis had an Indore connection.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable before the Indore Bench and the objection to territorial jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned circular dated 7-11-2014 could operate retrospectively to govern the imported consignments and justify withholding their clearance.

Analysis: A subsequent circular or clarification cannot add a new condition to the parent order so as to impair rights that had already accrued on the strength of an earlier contract and shipment. The goods had been contracted for and dispatched before the circular came into existence, and the reasoning treated the circular as incapable of retrospectively enlarging the certification requirement to cover the consignments in question. On that basis, the withholding of clearance was held unjustified.

Conclusion: The circular could not be applied retrospectively to the consignments, and relief for clearance was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to territorial jurisdiction failed, the retrospective application of the circular was rejected, and the petitioners were entitled to clearance of the covered consignments. The appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court has jurisdiction under Article 226(2) when an integral part of the cause of action arises within its territory, and a subsequent clarificatory circular cannot retrospectively impose an additional substantive condition on consignments already covered by an earlier contractual and shipment regime.

---