Shashi Mangla vs Union Of India
1992 Latest Caselaw 686 Del

JUDGMENT

M.K. Sharama, J.

(1) This is an application praying for review of order dated 10.7.1995 passed in Cwp 2439/95 and Cm 4095/95 dismissing the W.P. of the petitioner.

(2) The grievance of the petitioner in the Writ petition was that respondents No. 5 to 10 wrongfully claimed certain charges towards duty of Central Excise, which the petitioner 'had to ultimately pay. According to the petitioner the said amount had been paid to respondents 2 to 4 under the provisions of Central Excise and Salt Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act. On hearing Mr. R.K. Mongia the GPA. holder of the petitioner, this court by order 10.7.1995 dismissed the w.p. holding that since respondent No. 2 to 10 are all at Bombay, it is appropriate that such a w.p. should have been filed in Bombay High Court.

(3) The petitioner now through this review petition urged before us that since respondent No. 1 is located at Delhi and is also the sole beneficiary of the amount of duty of Excise and Central Sales Tax collected and deposited in the Consolidated Fund, this court should have entertained the w.p. and it acted illegally in dismissing w.p. although it had jurisdiction. He further submitted that respondents 5 & 6 granted dealership to the petitioner to sell their goods in the State of Delhi & Haryana, business offers were made at Delhi and orders were issued at Delhi and goods were dispatched to Delhi and as such the court in Delhi has the territorial Jurisdiction to decide the issues raised in the w.p.

(4) We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the petitioner before us. The order dated 10.7. "995 dismissing the w.p, would clearly reveal that this court did not throw out the w.p. on the ground of absence of territorial jurisdiction. This court only held that except respondent No. 1 all the other respondent are at Bombay. The allegation in the w.p. was that the said respondents wrongfully claimed certain charges from the petitioner towards Excise Tax which the petitioner had to pay. Apparently, there fore, the said charges were claimed from Bombay and realised there from. On the aforesaid considerations this court held that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to seek his remedy before the Bombay High Court. It is well settled that power of issue of writ is purely discretionary and based on equitable consideration. At this stage we may also refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in U.O.I. Oswal Woollen Mills AIR. 1984. SC. 1284. "HAVING regard to the fact that the registered office of the company is at Ludhiana and the principal respondents against whom the primary relief is Bought are at New Delhi, one would have expected the writ petition to be filed either in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana or in the Delhi High Court."

(5) Incidentally it may be mentioned that the office of the petitioner is located at Faridabad in Haryana as it appears from page 58 of the w.p. As the writ petition was dismissed on appreciation of the aforesaid principles and factors, in our opinion, no ground has been made out to interfere with our earlier order dated 10.7.1995.