LAWS(CAL)-1992-7-63

BIHAR COAL TRADERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

Decided On July 15, 1992
Bihar Coal Traders Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant appeal has been filed against the order of Susanta Chatterjee J. dated November 27, 1991 whereby the writ petition filed by the Appellant Petitioner was summarily rejected, inter alia, on the ground that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and no prima facie case had been made out to challenge the order in question. It is not necessary to go into the other questions which were taken note of by the learned trial Judge. Inasmuch as the preliminary question raised by the learned Advocate for the Respondents that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ application and, as such, this Court need not go into the merits of this case.

(2.) In order to decide this question it is necessary to set out certain facts which have been disclosed in the petition. The Appellant Petitioner's case is that the Appellant Petitioner carries on business in the name and style of "Bihar Coal Traders" at G.T. Road, Durgapur -3, in the district of Burdwan for selling of Coal washeries and/or middlings/rejects coal having ash content of 35% and that the Appellant Petitioner has got its head office at Dhanbad in the State of Bihar. It is further stated that the principal place of business, particularly selling of middlings of rejects, is being done at Durgapur in the district of Burdwan. It was further alleged that the Steel Authority of India against whom relief was claimed is the holding company of all iron and steel companies in the public sector having its registered office in New Delhi. The principal office of the Steel Authority of India is situated in Calcutta. Besides the said office, there is another office of the General Manager of the said Authority also in Calcutta.

(3.) Mr. Tapan Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant/Petitioner, submitted that while deciding the question of jurisdiction the Court decides such question strictly on the basis of pleadings and submitted that in the petition statement it has been made that the Appellant/Petitioner has office and coal depot in the State of, West Bengal and that by operation of the Bihar Trade Order the Appellant/Petitioner's business is being affected and this Court has any jurisdiction' on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition to pass any order against the Bihar authorities for taking action under the Bihar Trade Order., Whether the Appellant/Petitioner is a dealer under that order or not is not necessary to be decided, as in the instant case, the Appellant/Petitioner has called upon this Court to decide that because of the nature of the business then, provisions of Bihar Trade Order does not apply to the Appellant/Petitioner's business and that for carrying on the business in respect of the articles mentioned in the petition the said Bihar Trade Order was not applicable. Mr. Mukherjee relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in. the case of Union of India and Ors. v/s. Hindusthan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. and Anr. : A.I.R. 1983 Cal. 307 wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition has to be decided on the basis of the allegations made in the petition. In that case the impugned orders fixing the selling price and the retention price of aluminum was fixed by the Central Government at Delhi, the factory of the Petitioner company was located outside West Bengal. However, the Head Office was situated at Calcutta. In the petition it was alleged that the said company suffered loss in business at Calcutta as the direct consequence of the impugned orders. Accordingly, it was held that the part of the cause of action arose at Calcutta and, therefore, the Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Reference was also made to another decision of a Division Bench of this High Court in the case of M/s. Industrial Fuel Marketing Co. and Ors. v/s. Union of India and Ors. : A.I.R. 1985 Cal. 143. In that case it was held that the cause had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court when all the Respondents were within the State of West Bengal. On behalf of the Respondents reference was made to a Division Bench of this Court is the case of Everest Coal Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Coal Controller and Ors. : 90 C.W.N. 438 wherein vires of the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification) Order, 1984, and Bihar Essential Commodities Order, 1977, were under challenge. In that case the subject -matter of challenge in the writ petition was the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification) Order, 1984, arid Bihar Essential Commodities (Price and Display) Order, 1977. In that case, except the Coal Controller Office of all other Respondents were situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In that case the Appellant claimed to be private limited company and the owners of a set of bee -hive hard coke ovens situated in the district of Dhanbad, Bihar. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case it was held in that case that aooekkabt ciykd bit even oruna facie establish that any part of its cause of action in respect of the aforesaid two orders made by the Government of Bihar had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v/s. Swaika Properties and Anr. : A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1289 wherein the Supreme Court pointed out that mere service of notice would not give rise to cause of action. In other words, service of such notice must give occasion for filing the writ petition. For the purpose of accrual of cause of action for filing a writ petition, it is also necessary to make a distinction between actual or apprehended injury to the writ Petitioner and indirect effect or remote consequences upon him. Obviously, for giving rise to cause of action for filing writ petition what is material is whether or not within the territorial limits of the said High Court, there has been any proximate or direct effect upon the Petitioner. Indirect or remote result of the impugned acts of the Respondents cannot be pleaded for establishing that cause of action, either whole or in part, had arisen within the territorial limits of a. particular High Court.