Ruma Pal, J. - (1.) The petitioners are importers of spices. The petitioners have challenged a notification being No. 29/97-02 dated 17th December, 1997 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) by the Directorate of Foreign Trade and Ex officio, Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The grievance of the writ petitioners is primarily that by the impugned notification, special favours had been granted with regard to importation of spices to National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED) and Spices Trading Corporation Limited (STCL) illegally and in violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Initially the writ application was filed against four respondents namely; the Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, having his office at Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi 110011; the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce, having his office at Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi 110011; the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, having his office at 4, Esplanade East, Calcutta 700069 and the Union of India, through the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, having his office at 4, Esplanade East, Calcutta 700069. On the basis of allegations contained in the petition and as the Court was of the view that any relief granted in the writ petition would seriously affect both NAFED and STCL, by an order dated 4th February, 1998 the petitioners were directed to make them party respondents. Both NAFED and STCL are now respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition. NAFED has been described in the cause title as being located at "Ashram Chowk, New Delhi" and STCL has been described as been located at "72, Nandi Durg Road Extension, Bangalore 560046".
(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ application. The matter was taken up for hearing on 10th February, 1998 on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The petitioners sought to attract the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that they carry on the business of importing spices at Calcutta. They had been granted an Import & Export Code Number by the respondent No. 3, who has his office in Calcutta. According to the petitioners the notification which had been challenged had been made applicable to the petitioners at Calcutta and caused prejudice to the petitioners business here. The petitioners have relied upon a contract stated to have been entered into at Calcutta with the foreign purchasers who were threatening action against the petitioner in the event the petitioner did not make supplies. It has also been argued that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had their office in Calcutta and the impugned notification was being enforced and implemented in Calcutta.;