Writ forum discretion upheld where Bombay was the appropriate forum and Delhi links were insufficient for review.

Review of the dismissal of a writ petition was refused because the earlier forum selection was found proper: the principal respondents were based in Bombay and the excise and sales tax demands were claimed and realised there. The court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and must be exercised on equitable considerations. A mere connection of one respondent with Delhi, or some business activity linked to Delhi, did not justify interference with the earlier view that the Bombay High Court was the appropriate forum. The dismissal of the writ petition therefore remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application showed any ground to interfere with the earlier dismissal of the writ petition on the basis that the Delhi High Court should have entertained the writ petition despite the availability of another appropriate forum.

Analysis: The earlier order was based on the circumstance that the principal respondents against whom relief was sought were at Bombay and that the alleged excise and sales tax charges were claimed and realised there. The power to issue a writ is discretionary and must be exercised on equitable considerations. In these circumstances, the choice of the Bombay High Court as the appropriate forum was held to be justified. The plea that one respondent was located at Delhi and that certain business activities were connected with Delhi did not establish any ground for review or interference.

Conclusion: The review application was rejected and the dismissal of the writ petition was maintained.

---