Writ Petition No. 3169 of 2011

5th March, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. S.V. Manohar,Shri. V.S. Kukday
Respondent Counsel: Mr. S.K. Mishra,Mr. G.G. Modak

Cases Cited:
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2004(5) ALL MR 700 (S.C.)=(2004) 6 SCC 254 [Para 3,7]
Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2007) 6 SCC 769 [Para 3,8]
Alchemist Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State Bank of Sikkim & Ors., 2007 ALL SCR 1270 : (2007) 11 SCC 335 [Para 4,6,10]

JUDGMENT

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. :- Heard Shri S.V. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V.S. Kukday, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Mishra, learned A.S.G.I. for respondent no.2, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3 and Shri G.G. Modak, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. As requested by them, preliminary objection raised by respondent no.4 regarding territorial jurisdiction, is being, decided finally by this order.

2. Submission of respondent no.4 is, as the revision is decided by the Mining Tribunal constituted under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 at Delhi and its decision is being questioned in the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, no part of cause of action has accrued in the State of Maharashtra within the jurisdiction of this Bench.

3. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel while meeting with this preliminary objection has invited attention to paragraph no.11 (a) added to the petition. In view of the said objection, he submits that a quasi judicial authority has passed an order at Delhi which is operating on a property situated at Bhandara within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. He relies upon the facts mentioned in paragraph no.11 [a] to substantiate his contention. A judgment reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 : [2004(5) ALL MR 700 (S.C.)] (Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. .vrs. Union of India and another), particularly paragraph no.4 thereof, and judgment reported in (2007) 6 SCC 769 (Ambica Industries .vrs. Commissioner of Central Excise) paragraph No.17, are pressed into service.

4. Shri Modak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 relies on the very same facts in paragraph no.11[a] to urge that the facts disclosed therein have no bearing on the issue set up before this Court and are not relevant. He relies upon a judgment reported at (2007) 11 SCC 335 : [2007 ALL SCR 1270] (Alchemist Ltd and another .vrs. State Bank of Sikkim and others) to urge that those facts are not material and no cause of action has accrued in State of Maharashtra. The adjudication by the Revisional Authority cannot be viewed as a continuation of proceedings like a statutory appeal and hence, that adjudication needs to be challenged before a competent High Court which has got jurisdiction over the place where the Tribunal functions. All facts pleaded are not material or essential or integral do not form part of cause of action and hence, petition as filed is before wrong forum.

5. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the records. It is not in dispute that the Director of Geology and Mining published at Nagpur vide notification dated 12.10.2006, invited applications for grant of mining lease from general public. The head office of said Director of Geology and Mining is situated at Nagpur. In response to that public advertisement, the petitioner as also the respondent no.4 applied and applications were submitted with the Mining Office of District Collectorate, Bhandara within whose jurisdiction the lands to be leased out, are located. The said Authority then forwarded the same to the Director of Geology and Mining, Nagpur and as per the procedure State Government of Maharashtra then conducted hearing at Mumbai and passed an order on 26.06.1998 recommending name of petitioner to Central Government for grant of said lease. This order was challenged by the respondent no.4 before the respondent no.1 Mining Tribunal. The said Tribunal is a quasi judicial body constituted under Section 30 of the 1957 Act and it's seat is only at New Delhi. The Tribunal has accepted the contention of respondent no.4 on 26.08.2010 and that order is questioned in the present petition before this Court.

6. When in the light of these facts in case of Alchemist Ltd and another .vrs. State Bank of Sikkim and others, [2007 ALL SCR 1270] (supra), are looked into, the facts clearly show that the advertisement was issued by the State of Sikkim which desired to disinvest 49% of its equity capital in the holding of State Bank of Sikkim. The advertisement was to find out a strategic partner and rights to manage Bank were to be transferred to such partner. The appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court applied in response to the said advertisement, which was published in the Economic Times on 21.01.2004. The applications were to be submitted to the State Bank of Sikkim at its head office at Gangtok and such applications were subjected to scrutiny of Board of Directors of the Bank. The right to accept or reject without assigning any reason was also reserved by the Board of Directors. Adverse decision of the Board of Directors was sought to be questioned by the appellant by filing petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The territorial jurisdiction with the High Court was attempted to be demonstrated by pointing out the registered office of appellant at Chandigarh; Chandigarh as place of business; receipt of acceptance letter at Chandigarh; part performance of the contract at Chandigarh; Visit of Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Bank to Chandigarh; negotiations at Chandigarh and receipt of letter of revocation dated 23.02.2006 also at Chandigarh. It is in this background that the Hon'ble Apex Court has noted that none of these facts constitute an integral or essential part of cause of action. Various judgments looked into by the Hon'ble Apex Court also show that the material or integral part of cause of action i.e. facts having material bearing on lis between the parties must have been shown to have arisen at the place where the jurisdiction is sought to be invoked.

7. Perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. .vrs. Union of India and another, [2004(5) ALL MR 700 (S.C.)] (supra), reveals that where an order is passed by a Court or a Tribunal or an Executive Authority, whether under the provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. When the original authority is constituted at one place, and appellate authority is constituted at another, the Hon'ble Apex Court holds that a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. Order of Appellate Authority constitutes part of cause of action and hence, writ petition would be maintainable in High Court within whose jurisdiction the Appellate Authority is situated. This logic also holds good in present matter where it is a decision of revisional authority. The law, that scope of revision and appeal is different is not relevant in the present controversy.

8. In Ambica Industries .vrs. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has in paragraph No.17 noted that a writ of certiorari can be issued in respect of the orders passed by the subordinate Courts within territorial jurisdiction of High court or if any cause of action has arisen there within but, same test cannot be applied when the Appellate Court exercises jurisdiction over a Tribunal situated in more than one State. The Hon'ble Court has opined that in such circumstances, the High Court constituted in the State where the first tribunal/court is located, should be considered to be appropriate.

9. In the present facts, the basic order in favour of the present petition recommending its propose is passed on 26.06.2008 at Mumbai after hearing the parties. Jurisdiction of this Court to examine it is not in dispute. That order was questioned by the respondent no.4 by filing a revision under Section 30 before the Mining Tribunal. The Mining Tribunal has its seat only at New Delhi and therefore, has got jurisdiction over the entire nation.

10. The facts further show that the order of Mining Tribunal sets aside the recommendation of State Government in favour of petitioner dated 26.06.2008. The order has to operate in the State of Maharashtra at Bhandara. The advertisement was by the D.G.M. having its head office at Nagpur in relation to property also within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In absence of revision, the lease would have been executed in favour of the present petitioner within the jurisdiction of this Court and petitioner would have carried out all mining operations within the jurisdiction of this Court. The facts in Alchemist Ltd and another .vrs. State Bank of Sikkim and others, [2007 ALL SCR 1270] (supra), show that the first respondent - State Bank of Sikkim had its office at Gangtok and an administrative decision was to be taken in State of Sikkim i.e. at Gangtok only. The appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court had attempted to show jurisdiction at Chandigarh Court only because of its location at Chandigarh. Thus facts essential to constitute a cause of action sufficient to challenge purely an administrative decision are looked into by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

11. In present facts we are not in a position to hold that essential or material facts integral to form a cause of action have not transpired within the State of Maharashtra or then within the jurisdiction of this Court. We therefore, do not find any substance in the preliminary objection, the same is accordingly rejected.

12. List the Writ Petition for admission on 09.04.2013 as requested by Shri Modak, learned Counsel for respondent no.4.

Ordered accordingly.