Shashi Mangla vs Union Of India
1995 Latest Caselaw 992 Del

JUDGMENT

Dr. M.K. Sharma, 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 writ petition of the petitioner.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that respondents No. 5 to 10 have 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 Excises and Salt Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act. On hearing Mr. R. K. Mangla, the General Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner, this court by the aforesaid order dated 10-7-1995 dismissed the writ petition holding that since respondents No. 2 to 10 are all at Bombay, it is appropriate that such a writ petition 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 writ petition and it acted illegally in dismissing the writ petition although it had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. He further submitted that respondents 5 and 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 issue raised in the writ petition.

4. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the petitioner before us. The order dated 10-7-1995 dismissing the writ petition would clearly reveal that this court did not throw out the writ petition on the ground of absence of territorial jurisdiction. This court only held that except respondent No. 1 all other respondents are at Bombay. The allegation in the writ petition was that the said respondents wrongfully claimed certain charges from the petitioner towards Central Excise and Central Sales Tax which the petitioner had to pay. Apparently, therefore, the said charges were claimed from Bombay and realized 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 the 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 Union of India v. Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd., stating thus :

"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 sought are at New Delhi, one would have expected the writ petition to be filed either in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana or in the Delhi High Court."

5. Incidentally it may be mentioned that the office of the petitioner is located at Faridabad in the State of Haryana as it appears from page 68 of the writ petition. 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 dismissing the writ petition.

6. In the result, this application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.