TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Constitution of India. The writ petitioner is the Indian Institute of Architects, Prospects Chamber, Annexe, 5th Floor, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai, represented by its President. 3. This Court in W.P.M. No. 1028 of 1999 in W.P. No. 773 of 1999, by order dated 22-1-1999, granted interim stay of the operation of the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 (Act 32 of 1994). The petitioner herein has taken out a contempt application on the ground that the authorities in other States have not chosen to obey the interim order passed by this Court in W.M.P. No. 1028 of 1999 in W.P. No. 773 of 1999, dated 22-1-1999. When the contempt application came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, a question arose regarding the maintai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Daya Shanker v. Chief of the Air Staff, New Delhi (AIR 1988 Allahabad 36) and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of S.N. Deshmukh v. The Medical Council of India (AIR 1988 Bombay 284) and submitted that the cause of action has arisen by the action of the Government of India or its authorities in enforcing the provisions of an All India statute and the petitioner is aggrieved by such enforcement of its provisions on its members and hence, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 5. Central Government Mr. K. Veera Raghavan, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order of the learned Single ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the profession within the jurisdiction of this Court. The case of the appellant is that the levy of service-tax on the members residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court is also illegal. In our view, since the registered Office of the appellant is at Mumbai and respondents 1, 2 and 4 are residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the third respondent has been impleaded only to show that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court in so far as the members of the appellant are concerned. We hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly clause (2) or Artic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition and it is not necessary to go into the question of correctness of the statement made in the writ petition. 8. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Oil Natural Gas Commission's case, cited supra, it is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner has chosen to file the writ petition on the file of this Court on the basis that its President is a resident of Chennai. In our view, the residence of the President of the Indian Institute of Architects is not quite germane or is of no consequence in considering the question whether the cause of action or a part of the cause of action has arisen within the limits of the jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant are concerned, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Daya Shankar's case [AIR 1988 Allahabad 36] is quite distinguishable as in that case no part of cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the Allahabad High Court and the Allahabad High Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to approach the Court to issue a direction to authority whose office is situate in Delhi. In so far as the decision of the Bombay High Court in S.N. Deshmukh's case [AIR 1988 Bombay 284] is concerned, it is seen, on the facts of the case, a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court rightly held that the writ petition was entertainable by the Bombay High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
