Writ petitions against revisionary orders can be filed where original adjudication occurred or where revisionary authority is located

Bombay HC held that writ petitions challenging revisionary authority orders can be filed either before the HC where original adjudication occurred or where the revisionary authority is located. Applying Sri Nasiruddin precedent, the court ruled that petitioners have forum conveniens choice when cause of action arises partially within different jurisdictions. Since the revisionary authority operates within Bombay HC's territorial jurisdiction and appellate orders merged into impugned orders, petitions were maintainable before the Principal Seat. The doctrine of merger principle supports jurisdiction where appellate authority is located, while Article 226(2) allows concurrent jurisdiction where cause of action partially arises.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petitions before the Bombay High Court.
2. Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the petitions based on the location of the Revisionary Authority.
3. Application of the doctrine of forum conveniens.
4. Doctrine of merger in the context of appellate and original orders.
5. Right of the petitioner to choose the forum based on the cause of action.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petitions Before the Bombay High Court:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions, asserting that they should be filed in the High Courts within whose jurisdiction the original adjudication orders were passed. The court found this objection unsustainable and decided to address the limited question of jurisdiction, without delving into the merits of the disputes.

2. Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to Entertain the Petitions:
The court noted that the Revisionary Authority, whose orders were challenged, is located within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The petitioners argued that since the Revisionary Authority's office is within the jurisdiction of this court, the entire cause of action arises here. The court supported this view, emphasizing that the Revisionary Authority's location within Mumbai grants jurisdiction to the Bombay High Court.

3. Application of the Doctrine of Forum Conveniens:
The respondents contended that the petitions should be filed in the High Courts where the original adjudicating authorities are located, invoking the principle of forum conveniens. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the Revisionary Authority's order constitutes a significant part of the cause of action, making the Bombay High Court a suitable forum. The court referenced Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. and Sterling Agro Industries Ltd., highlighting that the doctrine of forum conveniens does not apply when a significant part of the cause of action arises within the court's jurisdiction.

4. Doctrine of Merger in the Context of Appellate and Original Orders:
The court reiterated the principle of the doctrine of merger, which states that once an appeal is decided by an appellate authority, the original order merges with the appellate order. This doctrine implies that the appellate order becomes the operative order and is amenable to challenge. The court cited East India Commercial Co. Ltd. to support this principle, emphasizing that the appellate order forms a significant part of the cause of action.

5. Right of the Petitioner to Choose the Forum Based on the Cause of Action:
The court upheld the petitioners' right to choose the forum based on where a significant part of the cause of action arises. It referenced Sri Nasiruddin and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd., which established that if part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court, the petitioner has the right to file the petition in that court. The court concluded that since the Revisionary Authority's order is a significant part of the cause of action, the petitions are maintainable before the Bombay High Court.

Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the petitions, as the Revisionary Authority's order constitutes a significant part of the cause of action. The court rejected the respondents' arguments based on forum conveniens and the location of the original adjudicating authorities. The petitions were adjourned for consideration on merits.

---