ANDHRA CEMENT LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Andhra Cement Ltd.
UNION OF INDIA (UOI)
Click here to view full judgement.
S.B. Sinha, J. -
(1.)In this writ application the Petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief 's:
(a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to cancel, withdraw, revoke and/or to forbear from giving any effect to the order dated October 5, 1988, passed by the Respondent No. 2, being Annex. 'F' to this petition and commanding them to allow the Petitioner company freight subsidy/ additional relief on the basis of actual cost incurred by the Petitioner company.
(b) A writ in the nature of certiorari directing the Respondents to send up to this Hon'ble Court the records of the entire proceedings, including those relating to the proceedings before the Bureau of Industrial Cost & Prices, on the basis whereof the order of the Central Government dated August 26, 1976, came to be passed and all proceedings before the Respondent No. 2 culminating in the order dated October 5, 1988, being Annex. 'F' as that conscionable justice may be rendered to the Petitioners by quashing all orders passed arbitrarily and illegally by the Respondents or any of the authorities appointed by the Central Government.
(2.)The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The Petitioner No. 1 which is a company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, is the owner of a cement factory situated at Vijaywada in the State of Andhra Pradesh, outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The Petitioner earlier has filed a writ application in this Court praying therein for compensation by way of freight subsidy purported to be in terms of the report of the Tariff Commission published in the year 1974. The Petitioner approached this Court earlier as it was not being given such adequate subsidy, and by a judgment and order dated September 3, 1987, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ application by directing the concerned Respondents to consider and pass appropriate order on the representations filed by the Petitioner on January 28, 1977, March 22, 1980 and April 25, 1980. A copy of the said judgment is contained in Annex. 'C to the writ application. Pursuant to and in terms of the aforementioned judgment, an order dated October 5, 1988, has been passed by the Respondent No. 2. The said order is contained in Annex. 'F' to the writ application. Admittedly, the aforementioned order was passed from New. Delhi and communicated to the Petitioner at New Delhi. The Petitioner in this writ application questions the aforementioned order which is Annex. 'F' to the writ petition. The Petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court stating that this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, inter alia, in view of the fact that the order impugned herein has been passed pursuant to the direction of this Hon'ble Court and for dispensation of justice, and to uphold the majesty of its legal process this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to scrutinise the impugned order and to set it aside with a direction upon the Respondent No. 2 to act in conformity with legal discipline.
(3.)The facts narrated above do not leave any manner of doubt that the entire cause of action for the writ application arose outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Only because a writ application was filed in this Court\ earlier and the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the judgment and order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application, in my opinion, is not sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court, inasmuch as, the said judgment and order does not form a part of cause of action for filing this writ application. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported in, 1996 (4) S.C.C. 711. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India this writ application cannot be entertained. However, it goes without saying that I have not applied my mind on the merit of the matter. Thus, it would be open to the Petitioner to file a separate writ application in the appropriate forum.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.