2005 (9) TMI 677 - HC - Indian Laws

Principal Seat at Bombay has jurisdiction over petitions within territorial limits. Cause of action & administrative convenience crucial.

Haji Abdul Razak Yasim Patel Versus Bara Imam Masjid Trust and Ors.

The court dismissed the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction, affirming that the Principal Seat at Bombay has jurisdiction to hear the petitions ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court's Principal Seat vs. Aurangabad Bench.2. Applicability of Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India.3. Interpretation of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960.4. Cause of action and its impact on jurisdiction.5. Relevance of property location in determining jurisdiction.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court's Principal Seat vs. Aurangabad Bench:The respondent contended that the writ petitions should be presented to the Aurangabad Bench as the properties in dispute are located within its territorial jurisdiction. However, the court found no merit in this objection, referencing a Division Bench decision in Nitin Industrial Associates, which clarified that the jurisdiction is determined by where the cause of action arises, not solely by the property location. The court concluded that since the impugned order was passed by the Charity Commissioner at Pune, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat.2. Applicability of Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India:The court discussed the scope of Article 226(1) and (2), emphasizing that the High Court's jurisdiction is coterminous with the state's territory. The court cited the Division Bench's interpretation that writ jurisdiction cannot be abridged by administrative rules. The court also referenced Article 227, which grants the High Court superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction, reinforcing the Principal Seat's authority to hear the petitions.3. Interpretation of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960:The court examined Rule 1 of Chapter XVII and Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI. Rule 1 states that applications for writs should be heard by a Division Bench appointed by the Chief Justice if the matter arises outside Greater Bombay. Rule 2 mandates that cases from specific districts, including Ahmednagar, should be presented to the Aurangabad Bench unless directed otherwise by the Chief Justice. The court concluded that the rules are designed for administrative convenience and do not limit the Principal Seat's jurisdiction.4. Cause of Action and Its Impact on Jurisdiction:The court emphasized that the cause of action, which includes the impugned order's issuance, determines jurisdiction. The court cited Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that part of the cause of action arises where an order is passed. The court concluded that since the impugned order was issued at Pune, the Principal Seat has jurisdiction.5. Relevance of Property Location in Determining Jurisdiction:The court rejected the argument that the property's location in Ahmednagar dictates jurisdiction. It emphasized that the impugned order's issuance at Pune is the material part of the cause of action. The court reiterated that properties could be located in multiple places within the state, and the jurisdiction is determined by where the impugned order was passed.Conclusion:The court dismissed the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction, affirming that the Principal Seat at Bombay has jurisdiction to hear the petitions as the impugned order was issued within its territorial limits. The court highlighted the importance of the cause of action and the administrative convenience rules, ensuring that the Principal Seat's jurisdiction remains comprehensive and aligned with constitutional provisions.