(1.) Heard Shri S.V. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V.S. Kukday, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Mishra, learned A.S.G.I. for respondent no.2, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3 and Shri G.G. Modak, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. As requested by them, preliminary objection raised by respondent no.4 regarding territorial jurisdiction, is being, decided finally by this order.
(2.) Submission of respondent no.4 is, as the revision is decided by the Mining Tribunal constituted under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 at Delhi and its decision is being questioned in the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, no part of cause of action has accrued in the State of Maharashtra within the jurisdiction of this Bench.
(3.) Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel while meeting with this preliminary objection has invited attention to paragraph no.11 (a) added to the petition. In view of the said objection, he submits that a quasi judicial authority has passed an order at Delhi which is operating on a property situated at Bhandara within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. He relies upon the facts mentioned in paragraph no.11 [a] to substantiate his contention. A judgment reported in (Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. .vrs. Union of India and another, 2004 6 SCC 254), particularly paragraph no.4 thereof, and judgment reported in (Ambica Industries .vrs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2007 6 SCC 769) paragraph No.17, are pressed into service.