TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t part of cause of action has arisen to the petitioner-Firm in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, merely because on the basis of the same common file, the show cause notice has been issued to the respondent No.7. In view of authoritative pronouncements of the judgments by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the arguments of learned Sr. Counsel that the proceedings out of the present show cause notice have started from a file of even number from which the proceedings were started against the respondent No.7, has no bearing giving rise to any cause of action to file the present writ petition before this Court. Merely because respondent No.7- M/s. Gagan Pharmaceuticals, Sriganganagar has filed the writ petition against the show cause notice issued to it before this Court and the same is pending, will not give any cause of action to the petitioner-Firm to file a writ petition before this Court against the show cause notice issued to it in State of Punjab. The present writ petition is not maintainable before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and, therefore, the same is dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. - HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel submits that it is an admitted position that the petitioner-Firm is located in the State of Punjab, the show cause notice has been issued to it by the respondent No.1, who is also located in the State of Punjab, hence, no part of cause of action has taken place in the State of Rajasthan, thus, the present writ petition is not maintainable, and merely because the show cause notice emanates from a file on the basis of which the show cause notice was issued to respondent No.7- M/s. Gagan Pharmaceuticals, Sriganganagar, will not give the petitioner-Firm a right to file the writ petition before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the official respondents argued that Clause (v) of the Circular dated 03.03.2015 cannot be read against the petitioner-Firm to fall in the Category of Noticee and, therefore, it will not give rise to any cause of action to the petitioner-Firm to file the present writ petition before this Court. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed only on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Per contra, Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel for the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e multiplicity of proceedings if the same is allowed to be continued at Jodhpur and Chandigarh, thus, it will be in the fitness of things that both the show cause notices are allowed to be adjudicated by same authority at Jodhpur. At the same time, he also prays that the proceedings pending at Chandigarh may be ordered to be transferred to Jodhpur. 12. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that two adjudications arising out of the same transaction of the show cause notices are in clear violation of the Department s own Circular dated 03.03.2015 which provides that the case has to be transferred to Commissioner of that noticee from whom higher demand of duty has been made and since in the present case, the duty demanded from M/s Gagan Pharmaceuticals, Sri Ganganagar is more than the petitioner-Firm, therefore, the adjudication has to be transferred to respondent No.5- Commissioner, CGST, Jodhpur which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He further submits that the separate adjudication by different authorities may lead to different outcomes regarding same transaction and may result in multiplicity of proceedings, thus, it is argued that it is in the interest of justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the issuance to the show cause notice to the petitioners as well as the respondent No.7, the place of adjudication as well as officers liable for adjudication for both of the show cause notices issued to the petitioners as well as respondent No.7 were the same be it, Chandigarh office or Mumbai office or the Delhi office. It is needless to mention here that since the petitioners entire show-cause notice is based on the transactions entered with the respondent No.7. Therefore, the earlier officers the respondent No.1 have rightly connected the show-cause notices issued to the petitioners as well as respondent No.7. However, most unfortunately proceedings regarding adjudication of the show-cause notice issued to the respondent No.7 has been transferred to the Jodhpur office of the respondent No.1. However, proceeding regarding adjudication of the show cause notice of the petitioners were remain pending at the Chandigarh office. It is worthwhile to note here that, since the show cause notice issued to the petitioner are well connected with show-cause notice of the respondent No.7 because of the issuance of the show cause notice to the petitioner were only on transactions as entered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily. 7. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads thus: (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. 8. Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: 20 OTHER SUITS TO BE INSTITUTED WHERE DEFENDANT RESIDE OR CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES. Subject to the limitation aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 9. Although in view of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions thereof would not apply to a writ proceedings, the phraseology used in Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Clause (2) of Article 226, being in pari materia, the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the court. 19. Passing of a legislation by itself in our opinion do not confer any such right to file a writ petition unless a cause of action arises therefore. 20. A distinction between a legislation and executive action should be borne in mind while determining the said question. 21. A parliamentary legislation when receives the assent of the President of India and published in an Official Gazette, unless specifically excluded, will apply to the entire territory of India. If passing of a legislation gives rise to a cause of action, a writ petition questioning the constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done because a cause of action will arise only when the provisions of the Act or some of them which were implemented shall give rise to civil or evil consequences to the petitioner. A writ court, it is well settled would not determine a constitutional question in vacuum. 22. The court must have the requisit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses, an order shall be issued by the Director General, CEI exercising the powers of the Board assigning appropriate jurisdiction to the executive Commissioner for the purposes of adjudication of the identified case. 21. A bare perusal of the same goes to show that the same is not relevant for adjudication of the controversy in hand as it cannot be construed that by way of Clause (v) of the Circular dated 03.03.2015 gives a cause of action to the petitioners in the present set of facts. When there is no part of cause of action having arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the argument with respect to the multiplicity of the proceedings is noted to be rejected only on the ground that both the show cause notices issued to the petitioners as well as to the respondent No.7 will be adjudicated on the facts and pleadings submitted before the concerned authorities and if the authorities will be of the view that there is any evasion of duty, the appropriate findings in accordance with law will be recorded. 22. This Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer No.-F to transfer the proceedings pending before respondent No.1 to respondent No.5 for joint adjudication of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
