TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The Customs Authorities altered the tonnage to 6441.00 M.T. Mr. R.C. Nag, appearing for the petitioners said that this alteration was done without any basis whatsoever. He showed the reverse of the Bill of Entry where the respondents' endorsements showed that the L.D.T. given by the petitioners was both as shown on the survey report of 1-10-1993 and as shown in the stability book. 5. Mr. Nag next contended that the Bill of Entry was also wrongfully altered by the respondents by imposing an additional duty of Rs. 1,000 per M.T. on the increased L.D.T. 6. Mr. Nag relied upon the judgment of Ruma Pal, J. reported at 1993 (67) E.L.T. 44. He said that in that case it was held by the Learned Judge that an exemption of Excise Duty was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court so far as entertaining writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned. 11. That such an order, when served within such limits, gives the High Court jurisdiction to entertain a writ is also, in my opinion, settled law. Mr. Nag referred to two Division Bench Judgments of this Court which amply bear out the above proposition. The first is the case reported at 90 C.W.N. 438 (the case of Everest Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Coal Controller Others) and the second one is reported at AIR 1983 Calcutta, 307 (the case of Union of India Others v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited Others). These are judgments binding upon me and I have no doubt that this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in that Article to show that if a part of the cause of action has arisen within such limits, the petitioner can approach that High Court as of right, and that the said High Court must, under the Constitution entertain the writ petition there. 16. It is not the choice of the petitioner which is the final deciding factor in this regard. It might be so in cases of institution of suits but it is not so in the matter of issuance of these prerogative writs. 17. Where the question of taking of leave of a Court arises before filing a suit, there the Court might refuse leave where only a slender part of the cause of action has arisen within its local limits. The Court could even rescind the leave later on upon that ground, if the defendant app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in these matters. But if the cause of action is such as shows a preponderance of facts connected with the other High Court, and if the respondent authorities also happen to be within the local limits of that other High Court, than the High Court connected with only a small part of the cause of action should unhesitatingly refuse relief to the petitioner and send him elsewhere. It is a salutary principle to follow, as the prospective writ petitioners as well as the prospective respondents will know where approach is to be made, and none will try to bypass one High Court in preference for another. We, the Judges, look upon such preferment with suspicion, and deeply discourage any such tendency in any litigant. 21. I have not heard Mr. Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
