TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith S.V. Bhutada, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Rohit Deo, A.S.G.I., for the Respondent. ORDER P.C. : Heard. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for calling of the records of Public Notice No. PS 7/2015 from File No. XVI/13/13/N/PS/ CC/2015, dated 14-9-2015 issued by respondent No. 4 and after perusing the same quashed and set aside the same as it has been issued contrary to the public policy and constitutional guarantee of equality. 3. The petitioner deals in the business of poppy seeds. The petitioner imports the poppy seeds for its business from various countries including Turkey. Since the business of import of poppy seeds is controlled by respondent No. 4 The Narcotics Commissioner, respondent No. 4, in exercise of his powers, has issued a public notice dated 14-9-2015. The said public notice, which concerns the import from Turkey, provides that the applicants, who are in category A and have imported poppy seeds from Turkey to India at least for three financial years during the last five financial years, will be allotted a quantity from the provisional country cap of Turkey on the basis of avera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt will not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. 7. The law, by now, is well-settled right from the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan others v. M/s. Swaika Properties another (cited supra). Even if the part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench, then this Bench will have a territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. We find that various judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court are on the same line. Though the judgments are in plenty, we would not like to quote all of them in order to avoid the order being bulky and we will restrict us only to two judgments, which are cited by Shri Gordey. 8. The term, ratio decidendi is very well explained by the Apex Court in the case of the Regional Manager and another v. Pawan Kumar Dubey (1976) 3 SCC 334, wherein Their Lordships have observed thus : We think that the principles involved in applying Article 311(2) having been sufficiently explained in Shamsher Singh s case it should no longer be possible to urge that Sughar Singh s case could give rise to some misapprehension of the law. Indeed, we do no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was business dispute between the petitioner and the respondent complainant. A civil suit with regard to the business dispute between the parties was filed in the original side of the High Court at Bombay. Thereafter, the first informant lodged the first information report at Shillong. Contending that though all the transactions between the parties had at Mumbai, only in order to harass the petitioner, the first information report was lodged at Shillong in the State of Meghalaya, the petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution at Mumbai. In this background, the Hon ble Apex Court, considered as to what is meant by the term, cause of action . It has been held by Their Lordships that while considering as to whether the part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have to look into the pleadings made in the petition and the relief sought in the petition. Their Lordships in unequivocal terms observed that though the entire transactions between the parties had taken place at Mumbai, only in order to harass the petitioner, the first information report was lodged at Shillong. In this background, the Apex Court held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt. Even, in this factual background, Their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed in Paragraph 42 as under. : In the present case, the facts which have been pleaded by the Appellant Company, in our judgment, cannot be said to be essential, integral or material facts so as to constitute a part of cause of action within the meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. The High Court, in our opinion, therefore, was not wrong in dismissing the petition . 13. Now, let us take the facts of the present case. The Hon ble Apex Court has held in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia that while considering as to whether the Court has cause of action or not, only pleadings in the petition are required to be looked into. Unfortunately, there are no pleadings in the present petition to show as to how this Court is of territorial jurisdiction and as to how the cause of action or a part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In spite of that, we have permitted Shri Gordey, learned senior Counsel to take us to averments made in the petition so as to examine as to whether any part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
