The High Court of Calcutta, while dismissing an appeal filed against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge vide which he had refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, held that Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot come to the aid of the appellant herein as facts forming an integral part of the cause of action did not arise wholly or even in part within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
Brief Facts:
The appellant herein was awarded a contract by the Government of India for the exploration and development work program in Coal Block. The appellant issued work orders in favor of 3rd respondent for providing transportation services. Certain disputes and differences cropped up. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act before this Hon’ble Court praying for the appointment of an arbitrator. In the meantime, the MSME Council issued a notice dated 28.01.2023 for Conciliation with respect to the reference filed by 3rd respondent. The District Magistrate, Shahdara, issued a letter informing the appellant that the MSME Council has decided to terminate the conciliation proceeding. Essar filed the writ petition praying for setting aside and/or quashing the letter issued by the District Magistrate. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has approached this Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the District Magistrate, Shahdara could not have assumed jurisdiction. He contended that the notice fixing the date of hearing on 17.04.2023 is bad in law as the date of hearing was prior to the date of communication by email.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the cause of action arose wholly outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He contended that mere receipt and issuance of communication does not give rise to cause of action for filing the instant writ petition. As per the Notification dated 30.09.2020, the District Magistrate, Shahdara District is the Chairperson of the MSME Council, New Delhi.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India states that the power conferred by Clause (1) to issue orders, directions, or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
The Court observed that only the facts constituting an integral part of the cause of action are material for the purpose of deciding whether this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition of the appellant. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot come to the aid of the appellant herein as facts forming an integral part of the cause of action did not arise wholly or even in part within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
Case Title: Essar Oil And Gas Exploration And Production Ltd. vs The District Magistrate & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Case No.: M.A.T. 112 of 2024
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. V.V.V. Sastry
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sumit Agarwal
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :