AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (2) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned Chief Justice on September 10, 1991, and the appeal was heard on September 17, 1991, September 24, 1991, September 25, 1991, and on September 27, 1991, when hearing was concluded, and judgment was reserved. 5. At the very outset, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the writ petition itself was not maintainable as this Hon'ble Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same, since the order impugned in the writ petition is "an order", passed by the Collector, Dhanbad, Bihar, in a proceeding under the 1956 Act. Accordingly, the said submission requires to be considered first before we proceed to the merits of the appeal. 6. For the said purpose, it is necessary for us to set out the facts, leading to the filing of the writ petition. 7. The writ petitioner/respondent is a Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is the owner of Bihar Talkies. In 1948, the sons of Raja Shib Prasad Singh sold their leasehold rights over the lands in question to the Selected Jharia Colliery Company Limited. In 1950, out of the said leasehold lands, the said company let out 3.65 bighas of land to Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage Private Limited, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....defendant both. In view of the above provision, this appeal apparently has become infructuous, as the right, title and interest claimed on the basis of the impugned leases now stand rescinded by the Central Legislation." 11. It was, therefore, held in BPLE Case No. 42 of 1973-7'4, that in the light of the order passed by the Patna High Court in F.A. No. 302 of 1963, it was no longer open to the State of Bihar to continue with the said proceeding, and the same was accordingly dropped by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dhanbad, by his order dated 10th June, 1982. 12. The State of Bihar, however, preferred an appeal against the said order dated 10th June, 1982, before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Dhanbad, and the said appeal was registered as M.R. Appeal No. 5/83. By an order dated 5th February, 1985, the matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dhanbad, for the purpose of ascertaining on the materials on record as to whether the land in question was "a public land" or not. While the matter was pending, the appellant herein was added as a party to the said proceeding pursuant to its application dated 22nd December, 1988. Thereafter by order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... encumbrances. 18. It was also submitted that, in view of the above circumstances, the appellant was added as a party in the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner in the Patna High Court, being F.A. No. 302 of 1963, against the decree passed in favour of the State of Bihar, in Title Suit No. 11 of 1961. While dismissing the appeal, the Patna High Court by its judgment and order dated 16th January, 1979, held that the right, title and interest claimed by the writ petitioner/respondent herein on the basis of the lease granted in its favour, stood reseinded under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, and by virtue of the provisions of the said Act, the right, title and interest, if any, of the writ petitioner herein in the demised land, vested in the appellant herein, namely, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, by a notification promulgated by the Central Government. It was also pointed out that in the aforesaid judgment dated 16th January, 1979, the Patna High Court had observed that the said position was undisputed and defeated the claim of both the plaintiff and the defendants, in the suit. 19. Mr. Mullick further submitted that having regard to the findings of the Patna H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, the writ petitioner/respondents were entitled to move this Court under Article 226(1) of the Constitution. 26. Mr. Roychowdhury then submitted that, as had been averred in the writ petition, the appellant herein, under the order and dictates of Coal India Limited, had issued a notification on 21st February, 1980, in a daily newspaper, "Janamat", to the effect that the property, in dispute was the property of the appellant and no one should deal with the same. 27. In this connection, Mr. Roychowdhury referred to the said notification, which had been made Annexure "G" to the writ petition, in support of his aforesaid contention. Mr. Roychowdhury pointed out that in the notification itself, it had been mentioned that the appellant was a subsidiary of Coal India Limited and was, therefore, working according to its dictates. 28. Mr. Roychowdhury further submitted that the writ petition was, therefore, competent and this Court had ample jurisdiction to entertain the same. 29. Elaborating his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Roychowdhury submitted that in the case of Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. East India Commercial Company Ltd. Calcutta, , it had been held that when the High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsonally. It is therefore immaterial that the property in question is not within the reach of the Court, provided that the defendant himself is within the jurisdiction, or is capable of being served with the proceedings outside the jurisdiction, and that there is some equitable right which the plaintiff could have enforced against him had the property been here. Accordingly in the leading case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore, specific performance was ordered of an agreement relating to the boundaries of land in America, the defendant being in this Country". 35. Mr. Roychowdhury submitted that in the case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore, the English Courts while exercising equitable jurisdiction, directed specific performance of an agreement relating to the boundaries of a plot of land situated in America, although, the defendant was residing in England. 36. Mr. Roychowdhury submitted that as Equity essentially acts in personam, and since the principal respondents in the writ petition, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, the appellant in the present appeal, and M/s. Coal India Ltd., have their offices within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court had ample jurisdiction to entertain the writ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w stands, the High Court has to take into consideration two relevant factors in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the same. 43. Firstly, the High Court has to consider whether the persons or authorities, to whom orders and writs are to be issued, are situated within the territories, over which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. 44. Secondly, the High Court has to consider whether the cause of action in the application, either wholly or in part, arose within the territories over which it exercises jurisdiction. 45. In this context, the observations of M. M. Dutt J. sitting with Monoj Kumar Mukherjee J. (as Their Lordships then were), in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Hindusthan Aluminium Corporation Limited and Anr. (supra) should be relevant for us to take into consideration. 46. In paragraph 24 of the said judgment, Their Lordships observed as follows :- "Under Article 226(2) of the Constitution, the High Court may exercise its power conferred by Clause (1) of Article 226 to issue directions, orders or writs if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the territory over which it exercises jurisdiction. It is now well settled ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, since the respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., has its offices within the jurisdiction of this Court, although, no part of the cause of action had arisen, within the State of West Bengal. 50. It has been contended in the writ petition, that the right to file the writ petition in this Court accrued when M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. was added as a party to the proceedings before the Collector, Dhanbad and since the office of the appellant is also situated in Calcutta, such contention appears to be correct. 51. In fact, in the case of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), despite the fact that the concerned employees were employed at the material time in one of the refractories of the Company situated in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, a Division Bench of this Court held that the relief in the writ petition had been rightly sought for in this Court, as the head office of the company was situated in Calcutta. 52. Technically speaking, in view of the provisions of Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court in our opinion, had jurisdiction to entertain ....