Ravi Shankar Vedam S/O Late Mr. S. ... vs Indian Bureau Of Mines, Thr. Its ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1114 Bom

WP-517-23.odt                                                    1



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 517 OF 2023
                                     Dr.Ravi Shankar Vedam
                                               vs.
                Indian Bureau of Mines, through its Controller General and another.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of                                                 Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
 or directions and Registrar's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Shri D.V.Chauhan, Advocate for petitioner.
              Shri N. S. Deshpande, Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent no.1.

              CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE :- FEBRUARY 02, 2023.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent no.1 on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of this Bench to entertain the writ petition in the light of the reliefs sought therein. Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to Rules 3(c), 10, 58, 61 and 69 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017. It is pointed out that the Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines has its office at Nagpur and since it is the grievance of the petitioner that the said Authority has allegedly defaulted in performing its statutory duties, a writ of mandamus be issued compelling it to do so.

Having considered the scope of Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India alongwith the decisions in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh vs. Union of India and another[AIR 1961 SC 532] as well as the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 10480 of 2005 (Jayaswals NECO Limited vs. Union of India (UOI) and others) alongwith connected writ petitions decided on 02.07.2007, we are satisfied that the cause of action for preferring the present writ petition does arise within the territorial jurisdiction

of the Nagpur Bench. The ratio of the decisions in State of Rajasthan and others vs. M/s Saaika Properties and another [(1985) 3 SC 217], Alchemist Ltd. and another vs. State Bank of Sikkim and others [(2007) 11 SCC 335] and VSP Acqua Mist Fire Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd., Mumbai and others [2010 (2) Mh.L.J.575] that were relied upon by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India would not be applicable to the facts of the present case since they arise out of the provisions of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India while the petitioner relies upon the provisions of Article 226(1) for invoking jurisdiction of this Court Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 10.02.2023.

Shri N. S.Deshpande, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. Service on the respondent no.2 by all permissible modes is permitted to be effected.

The prayer for issuance of interim directions would be considered on the returnable date.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

Andurkar..

Digitally Signed byJAYANT S ANDURKAR Personal Assistant Signing Date:

02.02.2023 16:01