DAS GUPTA, J. - (1.) ON 20 -9 -1950 the Collector of Customs, who has his office at Customs House Calcutta, made an order directing confiscation of 50 drums of Mineral Oil out of 2000 drums of Mineral Oil which had been imported by the petitioner, the East India Commercial Company Ltd., and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 61,000/ - on the said company under Section 167 Clause 8 and Section 37 of the Sea Customs Act. Aggrieved by this order the company appealed from it to the Central Board of Revenue under the provisions of Section 189 of the Sea Customs Act. On 8 -4 -1952 the Central Board of Revenue made the following order in disposing of the appeal: 'At the request of the appellants the Board had arranged for a retest of samples of the oil by the Chief Chemist. Central Revenue. The Chief Chemist on examination of the remnant samples has now confirmed the findings in the test report of the Calcutta Customs House Laboratory. The Board has carefully considered all the pleas put forward on behalf of the appellant but sees noreason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta.' Thereupon the present application for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution was made to this Court by the Company. The Collector of Customs having his office at Customs House, Calcutta was made the first respondent in this application; E. Section Krishnamurthy, Member, Central Board of Revenue having his office at Delhi, who had made the order mentioned above on 8 -4 -1952, was made the second respondent and the Union of India was made the third respondent. In this application the company prayed for an order 'for the issue of writ of certiorari against the first and second respondent calling upon them to produce all records resulting in the decision and order dated the 20th September by the first respondent and the order dated 8 -4 -1952 of the second respondent; an order for the issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent from taking steps in connection with the goods and giving effect to the recovery of the penalty and extra duty imposed; a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the first and second respondents to cancel or forbear from giving effect to the two orders mentioned; a direction that no penalty was realisable from the petitioner and that all the three respondents be directed to refund the penalty of Rs. 61,000/ - deposited by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 189 of the Customs Act and the return to the petitioner the 50 drums detained by the Customs authorities.' A rule was issued on the respondents why the writs should not be issued. When the rule came up for hearing a point was raised whether any writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution could issue against the second respondent, the Central Board of Revenue, which has its permanent office outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The further question appears to have been raised that if no such writ or order could issue against the second respondent, none could issue against the first respondent, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. On the prayer of the parties the learned Judge has made thereon a report under Chapter V Rule 2 and 3 of the Original Side Rules saying that this matter can he more advantageously heard by a Bench of two or more Judges, This is the matter now for our consideration.
(2.) AT the first sight it appears that the only question which in the opinion of the learned Judge made it necessary that the matters should be heard by a larger Bench was the question 'whether this Court has jurisdiction to make an order under Article 226 of the Constitution upon a Tribunal situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court but which exercises appellate functions in respect of a cause of action arising within the jurisdiction and an order made within the jurisdiction and where the party concerned resides within the jurisdiction.' Obviously, a question arises for a decision whether any writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution can be issued by this High Court at Calcutta to the second respondent, the Central Board of Revenue, which has its office at Delhi, outside the jurisdiction of this Court A closer study of the Judge's report makes it clear, however, that he was also thinking of the position which will arise if the first question mentioned above was answered fn the negative and it was bold that this Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution to the second respondent. That question would be whether in spite of the fact no writ could issue to the Second respondent, a writ could still issue to the first respondent. Reading the Judge's report as a wholeit seems clear to us that this was also part of the reason why he referred the matter to this larger Bench. The first question namely whether this Court can issue a writ to the second respondent does not appear to us to present any difficulty. In the Election Commission India v. Venkata Rao, : [1953]4SCR1144 the Supreme Court had to consider the question whether the High Court of Madras had jurisdiction to issue a writ to the Election Commission at New Delhi. Their Lord -ships held disagreeing with the Madras High Court 'that a tribunal or authority permanently located and normally carrying on its activities' outside the jurisdiction of the High Court could not be said to be 'functioning within the territorial limits of the High Court and being therefore amenable to its jurisdiction under Article 226.' Patanjali Sastri, C. J. delivered the judgment of the Court and pointed out that when the Constitution conferred on the High Court powers under Article 226, a twofold limitation was placed upon their exercise, and observed: 'In the first place, the power is to be exercised 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction' that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. Secondly, the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be 'within those territories,' which clearly implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either, by residence or location within those territories.' It was further pointed out by the learned Chief justice that the decision of the Privy Council in Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi was no authority for dispensing with the necessity of the presence Or location within the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction, of the person or authority to whom the writ was to be issued, as the basis of its power to issue it. The Supreme Court decided, therefore, that the High Court was not competent under Article 226 to issue a prerogative writ to the Election Commission, India.
(3.) IN my opinion we are bound by the authority of this decision of the Supreme Court to hold that this High Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution to the second respondent, the Central Board of Revenue.;