MAHESH CHAND GUPTA Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As indicated in paragraph 1 of the writ petition itself, it is clear that the writ petition has been filed to challenge, inter alia, the legality and validity of the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1 in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued by Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh i.e. respondent No. 2 herein. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction for quashing the recovery proceedings and the notice of recovery dated 14-2-2003 issued by the respondent No. 1.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents and in particular Respondent No. 2 that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. It is therefore necessary to first examine the question of territorial jurisdiction before proceeding with the hearing on the merits of the case.

(3.) There are two aspects to the present writ petition. The first is the challenge to the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 under the provisions of the U.P. Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. The second is the challenge to the notice of recovery dated 14-2-2003 issued by the respondent No. 1. The latter notice has been issued by the respondent No. 1 who is an authority in Delhi. The petitioner claims that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition in view of the fact that the said recovery notice dated 14-2-2003 has been issued in Delhi to the petitioner who also resides in Delhi. The property in connection with which the said recovery notice has been issued is also situate in Delhi. Thus, it is the petitioners contention, that part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. Thus, it is the petitioner's contention, that part of the cause of action has been in Delhi and that is sufficient to clothe this Court with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.