- (1.) The Purtabpore Company Limited, the petitioner, prays for a certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, on 14th November, 1967, modifying his earlier order dated 30th December, 1966, in relation to the reservation of certain villages in Bihar for the petitioner Company. In my opinion this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. It fails on that preliminary ground.
(2.) IN exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Central Government on 16th July, 1966, passed the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. Clause 6(1)(a) of this Order entitled the Central Government to make an order reserving any area where sugarcane is grown for a factory. Under clause 11 the Central Government could delegate all or any of the powers conferred upon it on, inter alia, the State Government or any officer or authority of the State Government. The same day, that is 16th July, 1966, the Central Government delegated the powers conferred on it by clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Order on, inter alia, the State Governments of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh as well as on the Cane Commissioners of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Utilising this delegated power, the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, on 30th December, 1966, made an order (No. 3088) directing that the villages named in the list shall constitute the reserved area of Purtabpore Sugar Factory Limited. Mairwa, for the purposes of sugarcane during the seasons 1966-67 and 1967-68. The list included 208 villages. All these villages were situate in the district of Saran in the State of Bihar. Feeling aggrieved the Standard Refinery and Distillery Limited, respondent no. 9, questioned the validity of this reservation order by instituting a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court at Patna C. W. J. C No 63 of 1967. The petitioner contested it During its pendency, respondent no. 9. made representations to various authorities for re-opening the question of reservation of 208 villages in favour of the petitioner. Coming to know of these moves, the petitioner Company made representations to the Government of Bihar and the Cane Commissioner and further prayed that the said 208 villages should continue to be reserved in favour of the petitioner on a long term basis. The Cane Commissioner, Bihar, passed two orders on 14th November, 1967. By one order (No. 2332) the Cane Commissioner superseded his earlier order no. 3088 dated 30th December, 1966, and further directed that the villages named in the list below shall constitute the reserved area for the petitioner factory for purchase of sugarcane during the season 1967-68. The list mentioned only 109 out of the 208 villages. A copy of this order was forwarded to M/s. Purtabpore Sugar Factory Limited, Mairwa, the petitioner. This order had the effect of cancelling the earlier reservation order of 208 villages completely for the year 1968-69. It confined the reservation for the year 1967-68 to only 109 villages. By another order the Cane Commissioner directed that the remaining 99 villages shall constitute the reserved area of respondent no. 9 for purposes of sugarcane during the season 1967-68. This order was forwarded to respondent no. 9. The petitioner wants both these orders to be quashed. The same day, that is on 14th November, 1967, respondent no. 9 applied for withdrawal of the writ petition filed by it before the High Court at Patna. The petitioner Company contested that application but the prayer was granted. The same day the present writ petition was instituted in this Court.
(3.) AT the hearing Mr. Khare, appearing for respondent no. 9, as well as Mr. Gopi Nath, appearing for the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the writ petition. They urged that no part of the cause of action had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court and so this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. Under Clause (1-A) of Article 226 of the Constitution, the power conferred by clause (1) to issue certain writs to any Government, authority or person, may 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 a Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. The petitioner desires that the orders of the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, be quashed and consequential mandamus be issued to him and the State Government of Bihar not to act in virtue of or in pursuance of the orders passed by the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, on 14th November, 1967. The seat of the Government of Bihar as well as the residence of the Cane Commissioner of Bihar are in the State of Bihar, that is outside the territories of the State of Uttar Pradesh to which alone the jurisdiction of this Court extends. The petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court only if it establishes that the cause of action for the claimed relief arose wholly or in part within the territories of Uttar Pradesh.;