UNION OF INDIA Vs. OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS LTDOTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal.

(2.) M/S. Oswal Wollen Mills Limited, having its registered office at Ludhiana in the state of Punjab and a branch office at Calcutta, and Narayan Das Jain, Secretary of the Company having filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court seeking various reliefs against the Union of India (through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi), the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, the deputy Chief controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar, the controller of customs, calcutta and the state Trading Corporation of India, New Delhi. The Primary prayer in the writ petitioner is to prevent or to quash an apprehended or purported action under Cl. 8-B of the Import Control Order. All the other reliefs Import Control Order. All the other reliefs sought in the writ petition revolve round the principal relief regarding Cl. 8-B of the Import Control Order. The other prayers are either ancillary or incidental to the principal prayer or are of an interlocutory character Havingregard to the fact that the registered office of the Company is at Ludhiana and the principle respondent against whom the primary relief is sought are at New Delhi, one would have expected the writ petition to be filed either in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana or in Delhi High Court. The writ petitioners however, have chosen the Calcutta High Court as the forum perhapes because one of the inter locatory relief which is sought is in respect of consignment of beef tallow which has arrive at Calcutta Port. An inevitable result of filing of writ petitions elsewherethan at place where the concerned officer and the relevant records are located is to delay prompt return and contest. We do not desire to probe further into the questions whether the writ petitions was filled by design or accident in the Calcutta High Court when the office of the company is in the State of Punjab and all the principle respondents are in Delhi but we do fill disturbed that such writ petitions are often deliberately filed in distance High Court's, as part of a manoeuvre in a legal battle so as to render it difficult for the official at Delhi to move application to vacate stay where it become necessary to file such applications. More about this later.

(3.) It appears that an order under Cl. 8-B of the Import Control Order had been made against the company on Nov. 9, 1983, but the writ petition was filed as if the order was in the offing and might be made at any time. The writ petition was apparently filed in professed or real ignorance of the order made under Clause 8-B of the Import Control Order.