QAZI MOINUDDIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this writ petition by five residents of District Dhar in Madhya Pradesh is for quashing for a direction contained in Clause 3 of the decision dated 7th April 2003 of the Directorate General of the Archaeological Survey of India (,,ASI) at New Delhi concerning entry into the monument at Bhojshala, District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) In the writ petition the justification for approaching the High Court of Delhi by five residents of District Dhar in Madhya Pradesh, in relation to entry into a monument located also in Madhya Pradesh, is that the Respondent ASI, whose decision is under challenge, is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) Mr. Anup Chaudhari, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners pleaded that under Article 226(1) of the Constitution, as explained by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India AIR 1961 SC 532, a writ petition brought forth by a person before a High Court within whose jurisdiction the authority whose decision is under challenge is located cannot be declined to be entertained on the ground of forum non conveniens i.e. on the ground that it would be more convenient or appropriate for the writ petition to be heard by some other High Court. It is urged that a petitioner is the dominus litus and is free to choose which Court to approach with a writ petition as long as requirements of Article 226(1) of the Constitution are satisfied. It is submitted that where Article 226(1) is attracted, there is no need to examine whether for the purposes of Article 226(2) any part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance is placed on the certain observations of the Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfilelds v Kalyan Banerjee 2008 3SCC 456.