TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and the Tribunal was directed to consider the said applications and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appellant filed R.O.M. (Rectification of Mistake) Petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal revoked its earlier direction for deposit of Rs.1 Crore towards the tax dues, but directed the appellant to deposit Rs.20 Lakhs towards penalty as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal. The appellant again approached this Court in Writ Petition SR. No.121063 of 2007. The learned single Judge, however, relying upon a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Ram Rakh Vyas vs. The Union of India & Others, A.I.R. 1977 Rajasthan 243, held that since the appellant-company is situated in Pudukottai District, the subject matter of the writ petition squarely comes within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and the writ petition cannot be entertained at the Principal Seat. 3. We have heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P. Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the second respondent. 4. The short question that falls before us is whether the Principal Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court and can never be entertained by the Registry at the Principal Bench. We are afraid that the view taken by the learned single Judge is contrary to the settled legal positions. 6. In Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331 : (1975) 2 SCC 671, the Supreme Court dealt with a similar provision contained in Clause-14 of the Allahabad High Court (Amalgamation) Order 1948, in the following words: - (at pp340-341) "The meaning of the expression "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" in the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order was answered by the High Court that with regard to applications under Article 226 of the same will be "a case arising within the areas in Oudh" only if the right of the petitioner in such an application arose first at a place within an area in Oudh. The implication according to the High Court is that if the right of the petitioner arose first at any place outside any area in Oudh and if the subsequent orders in the revisional or appellate stage were passed by an authority within an area in Oudh then in such cases the Lucknow Bench would not have any jurisdiction. The factor which weighed heavily with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted within the Oudh area, whereas the remaining mills were situated outside the Oudh area. The contention raised before the High Court was that the sale in terms of the notification, if finalised, would be given effect at the places where the mills are situated and since five out of the six mills were situated outside the Oudh area, the Lucknow Bench had no jurisdiction to take cognizance, entertain and decide the writ petition in respect of the five mills in terms of Clause 14 of the Allahabad High Court (Amalgamation) Order. 1948. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held as follows : "14. ... The territorial jurisdiction of a Court and the 'cause of action' are interlinked. To decide the question of territorial jurisdiction, it is necessary to find out the place where the 'cause of action' arose. We, with respect, reiterate that the law laid down by a Four-Judge Bench of this Court in Nasiruddin's case (AIR 1976 S.C. 331) holds good even today despite the incorporation of an Explanation to Section 141 to the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no dispute that the Amalgamation Order is a special law which must prevail over the general law. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tutionality of a parliamentary Act shall not be maintainable in the High Court of Delhi only because the seat of the Union of India is in Delhi. (See Abdul Kafi Khan v. Union of India (AIR 1979 Cal 354 .) 24. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his argument would contend that the situs of framing law or rule would give jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court and in support of the said contention relied upon the decisions of this Court in Nasiruddin v. STAT (1975) 2 SCC 671 : AIR 1976 SC 331) and U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P. ((1995) 4 SCC 738 ).So far as the decision of this Court in Nasiruddin v. STAT (cited supra) is concerned, it is not an authority for the proposition that the situs of legislature of a State or the authority in power to make subordinate legislation or issue a notification would confer power or jurisdiction on the High Court or a Bench of the High Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact this Court while construing the provisions of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 stated the law thus: (SCC p. 683, para 37) "37 . The conclusion as well as the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is constituted at one place and the Appellate Authority is constituted at another, a Writ Petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words, as order of the Appellate Authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a Writ Petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the Appellate Authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the Appellate Authority." (emphasis supplied) 9. In Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India, (2006) 6 S.C.C. 207, the Supreme Court held : "6. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution is of great importance. It reads as follows: "226 (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories." 7. The question whether or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Constitution for a writ of prohibition restraining the Election Page 1296 Commission, (a statutory authority constituted by the President) having its office permanently located at New Delhi, from inquiring into the alleged disqualification of the petitioner from membership of the Madras Legislative Assembly. The High Court of Madras issued a writ. The aggrieved petitioner approached this Court. Allowing the appeal and reversing the decision of the High Court, this Court held that the High Court of Madras had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Speaking for the Court, Patanjali Sastri, C.J. made the following observations: The makers of the Constitution, having decided to provide for certain basic safeguards for the people in the new set up, which they called fundamental rights, evidently thought it necessary to provide also a quick and inexpensive remedy for the enforcement of such rights and, finding that the prerogative writs which the Courts in England had developed and used whenever urgent necessity demanded immediate and decisive interposition, were peculiarly suited for the purpose, they conferred, in the States' sphere, new and wide powers on the....