Delhi High Court
Shri Muthappa Nettala Rai vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2016
Author: Manmohan
39
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1386/2016
SHRI MUTHAPPA NETTALA RAI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senor Advocate
with Mr. Sunil Fernandes and
Mr. Deepak Pathak, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Naginder Banipal, Advocate for
Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 19th February, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
CM Appl. 6049/2016 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 1386/2016
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1386/2016
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to challenge the
order dated 25th June, 2015 passed by the Deputy Passport Officer whereby
petitioner's application was refused in accordance with Section 6(2)(b) & (c)
of the Passports Act, 1967.
2. Petitioner also challenges the impugned order dated 23 rd November,
2015 passed by respondent No.2-Chief Passport Officer whereby the order
dated 25th June, 2015 was upheld and petitioner's application for passport
was rejected on the ground of adverse verification reports by the police and
Central Security Agencies. Petitioner also seeks issuance of a regular
passport forthwith.
3. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states
that petitioner had filed a W.P.(C) 30080/2013 GM (Pass) before the High
Court of Karnataka and the same was disposed of with the liberty to the
petitioner to apply for the passport before respondent No.3 and a direction to
the respondent No.3 to communicate the adverse report to the petitioner and
not to consider the adverse report of police as binding.
4. Mr. Bhushan further states that no adverse report was ever
communicated to the petitioner and consequently, principles of natural
justice have been violated. He states that the State Crime Report Bureau,
Bangalore, in its report dated 02nd July, 2010 has stated that the petitioner
was discharged/acquitted in all the twelve cases filed against him and there is
no pending case against the petitioner as of today.
5. In the opinion of this Court, since the petitioner has already invoked
the jurisdiction of Karnataka High Court, it would not be appropriate for this
Court to entertain the present writ petition.
6. A Five Judge Bench judgment in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. 181 (2011) DLT 658 (LB) has held as under:-
"31. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means
that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the
convenience of all the parties before it. The convenience in its
ambit and sweep would include the existence of more
appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the
lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for just
adjudication of the controversy and such other ancillary
aspects. The balance of convenience is also to be taken note of.
Be it noted, the Apex Court has clearly stated in the cases of
Kusum Ingots (supra), Mosaraf Hossain Khan (supra) and
Ambica Industries (supra) about the applicability of the
doctrine of forum conveniens while opining that arising of a
part of cause of action would entitle the High Court to
entertain the writ petition as maintainable.
32. The principle of forum conveniens in its ambit and sweep
encapsulates the concept that a cause of action arising within
the jurisdiction of the Court would not itself constitute to be the
determining factor compelling the Court to entertain the
matter. While exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot be totally
oblivious of the concept of forum conveniens. The Full Bench
in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has not kept in view
the concept of forum conveniens and has expressed the view
that if the appellate authority who has passed the order is
situated in Delhi, then the Delhi High Court should be treated
as the forum conveniens. We are unable to subscribe to the
said view.
33. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to modify
the findings and conclusions of the Full Bench in New India
Assurance Company Limited (supra) and proceed to state our
conclusions in seriatim as follows
(a) The finding recorded by the Full Bench that the sole
cause of action emerges at the place or location where the
tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority is situate and
the said High Court (i.e., Delhi High Court) cannot decline to
entertain the writ petition as that would amount to failure of
the duty of the Court cannot be accepted inasmuch as such a
finding is totally based on the situs of the tribunal/appellate
authority/revisional authority totally ignoring the concept of
forum conveniens.
(b) Even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within
the jurisdiction of this court, a writ petition would be
maintainable before this Court, however, the cause of action
has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case of
Alchemist Ltd. (supra).
(c) An order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of
cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the
High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is
situated. Yet, the same may not be the singular factor to
compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The
High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction
by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.
(d) The conclusion that where the appellate or revisional
authority is located constitutes the place of forum conveniens
as stated in absolute terms by the Full Bench is not correct as
it will vary from case to case and depend upon the lis in
question.
(e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise
jurisdiction under Article 226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked
in a malafide manner is too restricted / constricted as the
exercise of power under Article 226 being discretionary cannot
be limited or restricted to the ground of malafide alone.
(f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum
conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to be
scrutinized by the High Court depending upon the factual
matrix of each case in view of what has been stated in Ambica
Industries (supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. (supra).
(g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench
in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) "that since
the original order merges into the appellate order, the place
where the appellate authority is located is also forum
conveniens" is not correct.
(h) Any decision of this Court contrary to the conclusions
enumerated hereinabove stands overruled."
(emphasis supplied)
7. In view of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the
present Court is not a convenient forum. Accordingly, present writ petition
is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Karnataka High
Court. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2016
js
