TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receiving of shawls from its suppliers by the appellant-petitioner, without any descriptive details in its petitions, cannot be said that the part of the cause of action had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It was for the appellant-petitioner, to at least plead and also urge at the time of arguments before the learned Writ Court or even before this Bench substantially, as to wherefrom it had received supplies of the consignment of shawls manufactured from the prohibited yarn, so that the learned Writ Court or this Court in appeal could have said that in view of commission of offences in J K, the appellant s cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, so as to entertain the writ petitions for their disposal on merits. Merely pleading that the consignment was booked from Srinagar by the appellant-petitioner and the Notice/Communications from the respondents were received by the appellant-petitioner at Srinagar, does not disclose any cause of action having arisen at Srinagar so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the basis of part of cause of action, exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court. In absence of any sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized consignment from Srinagar to be delivered in Switzerland. The aforesaid notice was challenged in OWP No. 251/2015 by the appellant-petitioner before this Court. 4. The respondent-Regional Deputy Director, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (NR), New Delhi issued Communication No. 1-270/WCCB/NR/14/153 dated 13.04.2015 to respondent-Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi, who registered a case vide FIR No. RC220/2015/E-0007-CBI/EO-II/New Delhi under Sections 40, 49, 49-B and 58 read with Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Wildlife Act of 1972 ), based on which a notice was issued to the appellant-petitioner by the respondent-R. Ganesan, Inspector of Police, CBI/EO-II/EOU-V, New Delhi alongwith the proceedings initiated. These notices and the FIR were also challenged by the appellant-petitioner through OWP No. 1110/2015 before this Court. 5. Both these writ petitions were heard by the Writ Court and vide impugned judgment, it was held by the learned Single Bench that since the consignment/goods had been seized at Delhi, proceedings emanating as a consequence of seizure of prohibited/banned con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 19.06.2014 has been enclosed with the Communication; that the appellant/firm received a summons dated 30.07.2014 from Superintendent of Customs (SIIB), New Delhi, asking for attendance, giving evidence in respect of an enquiry being made in connection with illegal export of shawls made of hair of endangered species/animals, which is prohibited under law and the appellant/firm was asked to cause appearance on 11.08.2014. 9. Pursuant to the summons dated 30.07.2014, the appellant caused its appearance through an Advocate before the Superintendent of Customs (SIIB), New Delhi, informing him that the Customs Department has violated the customs law in seizing and sending the seized shawls for tests; that the appellant/firm submitted an application on 14.08.2014 to the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Export, New Delhi and requested him to release the seized shawls in its favour, failing which it would be constrained to initiate appropriate legal action and this application was followed by a reminder dated 26.09.2014. 10. Aggrieved of the show cause notice dated 19.01.2015, the appellant/firm filed a Writ Petition bearing OWP No. 251/2015 before this Court, seeking quashmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent Nos. 3 4 have filed their reply affidavit to the writ petitions and thereafter, both the aforesaid writ petitions were clubbed. The respondents took a plea before the learned Writ Court with regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Writ Court vide impugned judgment dated 16.06.2023 dismissed the petitions filed by the appellant-petitioner. While deciding the case, the Writ Court had relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled, Lt. Col. Khajuri Singh Vs. Union of India, reported as AIR 1961 (SC) 532 , wherein it has been held that the act against which the relief has been sought was clearly performed at Delhi, therefore, the Jammu Kashmir High Court, cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The impugned judgment dated 16.06.2023 passed by the learned Writ Court has been assailed by the appellant through the medium of this Intra-Court Appeal on the ground that the action of the respondent No. 2 and registering of FIR thereon by the respondent No. 3 were violative of the interim order passed by this Court and the same was without jurisdiction, therefore, the appellant had righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a part of cause of action had accrued within its territorial jurisdiction. It was argued that the seized consignment was booked by the appellant-petitioner at Srinagar through courier service, to be delivered in a foreign country, therefore, the cause of action had started at Srinagar only and the Notices/Communications have been made/received by the appellant-petitioner at Srinagar. 17. There is no dispute with regard to submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that in view of the part of cause of action having accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, that High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction in a matter, where some cause of action may have accrued in continuation within the territorial jurisdiction of some other High Court, in view of the law on the point having been authoritatively laid by the Hon ble Apex Court, in case titled, Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra Ors., reported in 2000 (7) SCC 640 the relevant para of the said judgment, for ready reference, is extracted as under:- We make it clear that the mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
