Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 89 (CAL)

SUPRABHAT STEELS LTD. v. C. E. G. A. T.

2002-02-13

AMITAVA LALA

body2002
AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter is fixed today under the heading 'application' for the purpose of passing certain orders in connection with notice of attachment issued under Rules 9 and 10 of the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995. It appears to this court, as argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the same has been issued from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Gaya, Bihar. Panchnama in respect of Attachment of Movable Property was also of the appropriate officer, Central Excise Division, Gaya. The inventory was also made there. Therefore, the petitioners cannot get any relief in connection with the application as well as the main writ petition within the jurisdiction of this Court. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended before this Court that the application is in the nature of interlocutory application but as and when the main writ petition will be heard he will give the appropriate answer. Moreover, the order was passed by CEGAT, Eastern Regional Bench, Calcutta in Appeal No. E/r-172 of 96 on 3-5-2000 [2001 (137) E. L. T. 397 (Tribunal)]. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction in view of the joint reading of Article 226 (2), Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to me, at the earliest the records are to be checked up when such point of jurisdiction has been taken by the party opposing the application. I have taken note of the documents annexed to this writ petition. I find save and except the order of the Tribunal all were happened outside the territorial writ jurisdiction of this Court in Gaya, Bihar. Therefore, there cannot be any embargo upon the Court to take note of such part of draw a final conclusion even at the stage of application. ( 4 ) ARTICLE 226 (2) speaks that High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. ( 4 ) ARTICLE 226 (2) speaks that High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. If I go through Article 227 I shall be able to find that the High Court shall have the power of superintendence over all courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises its jurisdiction. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents pointed that this is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the principle of Article 227 will not be applicable herein. Be that as it may I have called upon to adjudicate the activities of the Governmental authority admittedly outside the jurisdiction of this Court but for the order passed by the Tribunal. Factually the tribunal commonly known as CEGAT wholly for the Eastern Circuit Bench sits at Calcutta but that does not mean that Calcutta High Court alone have jurisdiction in respect of the order passed by the Tribunal in any of the matter of entire in eastern region. Venue cannot determine the jurisdiction. Non-obstante clause under Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India about the seat of the Court or authority or residence of any person in application of territorial jurisdiction is applicable in two ways. When cause or causes of action arose within the jurisdiction by such non-obstante clause order of this Court will be applicable even outside the jurisdiction. But even when no cause of action is arisen within the jurisdiction question of having applicability of the order outside the jurisdiction cannot arise. It is non-obstante to the earlier part of the Article 226 (2 ). Therefore, merely because CEGAT in Calcutta passed an order in respect of the matter in the State of Bihar, this Court cannot assume the jurisdiction. Incidentally even the order of the CEGAT, Calcutta in respect of the subject matter of the State of Bihar ipso facto cannot give rise even part cause of action within the jurisdiction. Thus, upon taking totality of the matter and following the ratio of the judgment (Union of India and Ors. v. Adani Export Ltd. and Anr. ). Incidentally even the order of the CEGAT, Calcutta in respect of the subject matter of the State of Bihar ipso facto cannot give rise even part cause of action within the jurisdiction. Thus, upon taking totality of the matter and following the ratio of the judgment (Union of India and Ors. v. Adani Export Ltd. and Anr. ). I dismiss both the applications and also the writ petition by treating as on day's list. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs. .