Court asserts jurisdiction, orders speedy resolution in petition appeal with perishable goods. Merits decision with respondent.

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case as part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits. The judge directed the respondent to dispose of the petition mentioned appeal within two weeks due to the perishable nature of the goods involved. An online hearing was required before final orders were passed, emphasizing the need for a speedy resolution. The judge clarified that the decision on the merits rested with the respondent, and the writ petition was disposed of with no costs imposed.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Court, Disposal of petition mentioned appeal

Jurisdiction of the Court:
The petitioner sought disposal of a petition mentioned appeal, but the Standing counsel argued that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the petitioner resided in Kerala and the authority was based in Haryana. However, the judge disagreed, citing Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which allows orders to be passed even if the authority is outside the territorial limits, as long as a part of the cause of action arose within the Court's jurisdiction. Since the consignment in question was imported only at Tuticorin Port within the Court's territorial limits, the judge held that jurisdiction was established.

Disposal of petition mentioned appeal:
Considering the perishable nature of the goods involved and the time elapsed since the import, the judge directed the first respondent to dispose of the petition mentioned appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. Emphasizing the need for a speedy resolution due to the nature of the goods, the judge required an online hearing for the petitioner before the final orders were passed. The judge clarified that the decision on the merits of the case rested with the first respondent, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed.

---