TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 1304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tender process initiated by the Respondent No. 1 Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited and the award of the contract to the Respondent No. 3. According to the Respondent No. 1 the entire cause of action has not arisen within the normal territorial jurisdiction of the Bench at Nagpur, and same has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat at Bombay, hence a preliminary objection has been raised to the filing of this petition at Nagpur. We have accordingly heard the learned Counsels on this issue. 3. Shri K.H. Deshpande, Senior Advocate, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that the place of filing of a writ petition is controlled by Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Judicial Districts of Akola, Amravati, Bhandara, Buldhana, Chandrapur, Nagpur, Wardha, Yavatmal and Gadchiroli which lies to the High Court of Bombay shall be presented to the Additional Registrar of that High Court at Nagpur and shall be disposed of by the Judges sitting at Nagpur: Provided that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case arising in any such District shall be heard at Bombay; Provided further that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case presented at Bombay be heard at Nagpur. 4. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner only writ petitions where the cause of action has arisen within districts specified in Rule 1 of Chapter XXXI and under Section 41 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he State of Rajasthan, ostensibly on the ground that a notice had been served on the Petitioner at Calcutta. The Supreme Court deprecated assumption of jurisdiction at Calcutta and held that if the Petitioners had felt aggrieved by the acquisition of their lands situated at Jaipur and wanted to challenge the authority of the notification issued by the State Government of Rajasthan under Section 152 of the Act, by petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the remedy of the Respondents was to file such a petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, where the cause of action, wholly or in part arose. Thereafter, in Oil And Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. 1994 DGLS (soft) 554 : 1994(4) SCC 711, the Supreme C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said Court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire system to ridicule. We are greatly pained to say so but if we do not strongly deprecate the growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be failing in our duty to the institution and the system of administration of justice. We do hope that we will not have another occasion to deal with such a situation. 7. Though their Lordships expressed a hope that they would not have another occasion to d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bombay Appellate Side Rules and Section 41 of the Bombay Reorganization Act, in any way can be taken to have abridged the jurisdiction and power conferred on this High Court by Article 226 in view of the observations of the Supreme Court (in Re: Kerala Education Bill v. Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India)8 1958 DGLS 84: A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 956. The Division Bench has observed as follows: In view of this, the contention must be negatived. But be that as it may, although the said two provisions cannot abridge the jurisdiction, the said two provisions need to be looked at in their proper perspective. The said two provisions namely, Section 41 Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 (Act No. 11 of 1960) and the provision....