V.D.Bhargava, J. - (1.) These are five connected writ petitions filed by five different petitioners who had been assessed to sales tax by the State of Bihar. The State of Bihar had sent an order of collection to the Collector of Mirzapur, who was making collections on behalf of the State of Bihar. These writ petitions have been filed on the ground that the order passed by the State of Bihar under the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act VII of 1956 was not a valid one and, therefore, the Collector of Mirzapur has no jurisdiction to realise the illegal tax on behalf of the sales tax authorities at Bihar.
(2.) The real order, which is being challenged, is the order of the Assistant Superintendent, Sales Tax, Central Circle, Bihar, Patna. Unless the order of that authority is set aside no mandamus can be issued to the Collector of Mirzapur directing him not to realise tax. So long as that order stands it will be deemed to be a valid order and if it is a valid order then no objection can be taken to the realisation of tax by the Collector of Mirzapur. He is only acting as an agent of the State of Bihar. The matter was considered by me at length in Writ Petn. No. 1747 of 1957, Altafur Rahman v. Collector Central Excise Allahabad, decided on 7th January 1960, (AIR 1960 All 551), where I have held:-- ''The reason given for this finding was that by issuing a writ against the agent or the subordinate authority under those circumstances, the High Court would be putting him in a position, whereby, he would be compelled to disobey the orders of his principal, and directions would be of no avail for the simple reason, that an agent or the inferior authority was to obey all lawful directions of his principal and not directions, which the High Court holds to be unlawful or not justified in law." In the circumstances mentioned, the Collector, Mirzapur would obey the order unless set aside by proper authority in whose jurisdiction the Collector is situate and he cannot be restrained from realising the tax.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in Moinuddin v. Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Eastern Command, AIR 1956 All 684, where it was held that: "The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 can be exercised within the territories in relation to which its ordinary jurisdiction extends, and further a direction, order or writ under that Article can be issued only to a person or authority residing within those territories. The mere fact that the official or authority concerned whose central office is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court has also an office or property within the jurisdiction of the High Court will not give it a jurisdiction to issue a direction, order or writ against him." So far as that portion of the judgment is concerned, it agrees with my view. But reliance was actually placed on another portion of the judgment where it has been mentioned: ''But where an order of an official or authority, who is not resident within the jurisdiction of the Court is a total nullity and is altogether inoperative, it may be ignored, and the official, who resides within the jurisdiction of the Court and, who intends to put such a null and void order into effect, may be restrained, because, in such a case, this Court will not he issuing even indirectly any direction, order or writ to the official body residing beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.";