Judgment 1. Heard Sri. S.S. Naganand, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Kiran S Javali for petitioner and Sri. N.R. Bhaskar, learned panel counsel appearing for respondents. 2. Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 5797/2013 by order dated 03.09.2014 set aside the order passed in the present writ petition on 19.08.2013 whereunder this Court had held that present writ petition is to be heard on merits though respondents had contended this Court had no territorial jurisdiction. Division Bench while setting aside said order has held when objections regarding territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition has been raised by respondents same should be heard and decided as a preliminary issue. Order passed by Division Bench on 03.09.2014 reads as under: “c. The objections regarding territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition shall be decided as a preliminary issue.” Hence, this Court has heard the learned Advocates regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as to whether present writ petition would be maintainable before this Court. 3. Perusal of the averments made in the writ petition does not suggest of petitioner having made any averment in the writ petition with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court and maintainability of writ petition before this Court. However, respondents having appeared and filed their statement of objections have specifically raised a plea in paragraph 3 of their statement of objections contending interalia that in view of Article 226(2) of Constitution of India being attracted to the facts on hand, this Court cannot exercise power vested in it in relation to territories which is beyond its jurisdiction and no part of cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of this Court and as such it is contended that present writ petition is not maintainable before the Court. 4. 4. Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the statement of objections and contended that plea raised by respondents regarding jurisdiction is liable to be rejected by contending that when entire cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of this Court, present writ petition is maintainable before this Court and particularly when the Registered office and also the Corporate office of petitioner being situate at Bangalore and when petitioner is carrying on its business of import and export from Bangalore and as such, it cannot be contended that this Court has no jurisdiction and it is also contended that even otherwise, when part of cause of action has arisen in Bangalore i.e., within jurisdiction of this Court, this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain present writ petition and as such petitioner has prayed for petition being heard on merits. 5. It is the contention of Sri Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner that in the writ petition quashing of communication dated 18.06.2013 (Annexure – G) has been sought and also to declare condition No. 34(b) and 34(c) of the Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 (Annexure – A) has stood complied by virtue of the Packing List and Assay Certificate of the Perth Mint and said notification having been issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance and based on said notification, impugned notice has been issued to petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and when the Deputy Commissioner of Customs is subordinate to the Commissioner of Customs, petitioner would be entitled to challenge said notice before this Court and present writ petition as such would be maintainable before this Court since the very issue regarding correctness of notification is under challenge. Hence, he submits that present writ petition is maintainable before this Court. He would also submit that Registered office o the petitioner – company is at Bangalore and impugned communication has been issued by second respondent to the address of petitioner which is at Bangalore and as such, present writ petition is maintainable before this Court. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon following judgments: (i) (2004) 6 SCC 254 Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India And another. (ii) (1975) 2 SCC 738 Sri Nasiruddin vs. State of Transport Appellate Tribunal. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon following judgments: (i) (2004) 6 SCC 254 Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India And another. (ii) (1975) 2 SCC 738 Sri Nasiruddin vs. State of Transport Appellate Tribunal. (iii) (2001)2 SCC 294 Rajasthan High Court Advocates’ Association vs. Union of India (iv) Order dated 20.12.2013 in W.P.No. 37302/2013 (v) Order dated 30.08.2010 in W.P.No. 19286/2010 (vi) Order dated 05.07.2013 in W.P. No. 28217/2013 (vii) Order dated 28.11.2013 in W.P. No. 53219-53667/2013. 6. Per contra, Sri N R Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents would reiterate the contentions raised by respondents in their statement of objections and prays for rejection of present writ petition on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to examine correctness or otherwise of the impugned communication since no part of cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of this Court. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon following judgments: (i) (1994)4 SCC 711 Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and others. (ii) (1998) 9 SCC 576 Union of India vs. Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. (iii) (2002) 1 SCC 567 Union of India and others vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and another. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, this Court is of the considered view that following point would arise for consideration: “Whether this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to examine the present writ petition on merits or not? FACTUAL MATRIX: 8. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacture and export of gold jewellery and gold products and has obtained Import-Export Code under the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act. Petitioner – company imported Gold Dore Bars at Delhi port from Perth Mint by availing exemption under notification No. 12/2002 dated 17.03.2002 (Annexure-A) which is issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 contending that normal rate of duty for import of foreign branded pure refined gold bars at that point of time was 4% and the exempted duty was as per Sl.No.318 which was for import of raw gold was 2% and an additional 1% of excise duty payable on such exemption which was in all 3% and thereby 1% less than the normal rate of duty. It is also contended that such discount of 1% duty was available primarily to encourage the import of raw gold in place of foreign branded refined gold bars since import of raw gold would save substantial foreign exchange for the country and would also help in establishing gold refining industry in India which would help in increasing industrial activity in the country and generate additional employment and resolve the country’s dependability on foreign imported Gold Bars. 9. It was further contended that on importation of Gold Dore Bars at Delhi Port it came to be cleared for home consumption on being satisfied that petitioner had fulfilled all the requirements listed under condition No.5 and 34 of notification No. 12/2012. It is contended that subsequent to exchange of correspondence, impugned communication dated 18.06.2013 (Annexure-E) came to be issued calling upon petitioner to submit packing list from the Mining Company in respect of all past imports of Gold Dore Bars imported from Perth Mint within a week. It is this communication which is impugned in the present notification and petitioner has also sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare that condition No.34(b) and 34(c) of notification No. 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 (Annexure-A) has stood complied. 10. Respondent has filed its statement of objections traversing the petition averments and denying the same, except to the extent expressly admitted therein. Respondent has specifically raised an objection with regards to lack of jurisdiction, contending interalia that in view of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot exercise power vested upon it in relation to territories which is beyond its jurisdiction. It is also contended that cause of action in the present case wholly arises at New Delhi, since entire consignment of import of Gold Dore Bars by the petitioner took place at Customs Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi and the notification – Annexure-A pressed into service as well as the impugned communication have been issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (I & G), New Delhi who is having office at New Customs House, New Delhi and as such, no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. On this amongst others respondent has sought for dismissal of writ petition. DISCUSSION ON ABOVE POINT AND FINDINGS THEREON: 11. On this amongst others respondent has sought for dismissal of writ petition. DISCUSSION ON ABOVE POINT AND FINDINGS THEREON: 11. In order to delve upon the point formulated herein above, it would be necessary to extract Article 226(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India and they read as under: “226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including (writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Governments, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories” 12. Perusal of sub-Article (1) of Article 226 would indicate that every High Court will have power throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction namely, to issue any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government within those territories directions, orders or writ for the enforcement of any rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. Under sub-Article (2) of Article 226, High Court can exercise its power conferred by clause (1) if it is shown that cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the territory within which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding the seat such Government or authority or residence of such person is not within those territories. Under sub-Article (2) of Article 226, High Court can exercise its power conferred by clause (1) if it is shown that cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the territory within which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding the seat such Government or authority or residence of such person is not within those territories. Thus, on a plain reading of the aforesaid two sub-Articles of Article 226 of the Constitution, it is evident that High Court can exercise power to issue directions, order or writs for the enforcement of any fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purposes if the cause of action wholly or partly has arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or residence of such person against whom direction or writ is issued is being not within said territories. If the petitioner is able to demonstrate that atleast a part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, present writ petition will have to be held as surviving for consideration as otherwise not. Hence, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction, this Court will have to take into consideration all the facts pleaded in support of cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon any enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words, question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts of each case and there cannot be any straight jacket formula in this regard. 13. A judgment or an order passed by the Court having no jurisdiction would be nullity. Cause of action includes all those material facts necessary to be alleged and proved by the petitioner/plaintiff having nexus with the relief sought for from the Court. The cause of action cannot be confused or mistaken with the forum of conveniens which the plaintiff/petitioner chooses. Cause of action or part of cause of action would have to be discerned from the pleadings and it is a bundle of facts, when considered would give the plaintiff/petitioner cause of action to file a suit or petition. The cause of action cannot be confused or mistaken with the forum of conveniens which the plaintiff/petitioner chooses. Cause of action or part of cause of action would have to be discerned from the pleadings and it is a bundle of facts, when considered would give the plaintiff/petitioner cause of action to file a suit or petition. Even if part of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the High Court, that Court will have jurisdiction as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU vs. R.K. MISHRA, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 1 SCC 457 whereunder it came to be held as follows: “9. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the Andhra Pradesh High Court was justified in holding that as the seizure took place at Chennai (Tamil Nadu), the appellant could not maintain the writ petition before it. The High Court did not examine whether any part of cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh. Clause (2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action arises wholly or in part, will have jurisdiction. This would mean that even if a small fraction of the cause of action (that bundle of facts which gives a petitioner, a right to sue) accrued within the territories of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court of that State will have jurisdiction.” 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in NAVINCHANDRA N MAJITHIA vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640 has held that High Court would have jurisdiction even if a part of the cause of action arises within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction even where seat of the authority is outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High Court. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “37. The object of the amendment by inserting clause (2) in the article was to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court in Election Commission vs. Saka Venkata Subba Rao ( AIR 1953 SC 210 ) and to restore the view held by the High Courts in the decisions cited above. The object of the amendment by inserting clause (2) in the article was to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court in Election Commission vs. Saka Venkata Subba Rao ( AIR 1953 SC 210 ) and to restore the view held by the High Courts in the decisions cited above. Thus the power conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which “the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises” and it is no matter that the seat of the authority concerned is outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High Court. The amendment is thus aimed at widening the width of the area for reaching the writs issued by different High Courts.” 15. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that legal right claimed by him has prima-facie been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Courts’ jurisdiction in the case of OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2006) 6 SCC 207 it has been held as under: “7. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court’s jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof.” It has also been held in the said judgment by Hon’ble Apex Court that cause of action means a group of operative facts which give rise to one or more basis of suing vide paragraph 14 of its judgment and it reads as under: “14. The expression “cause of action” is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more basis of suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person (see Black’s Law Dictionary). In Stroud’s judicial Dictionary a “cause of action” is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. In Words and Phrases (4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase “cause of action” in common legal parlance is existent of those facts, which give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf. (See Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra). Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KUSUM INGOTS & ALLOYS LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 while examining the meaning of cause of action and its implication on right to sue has held to the following effect: “6. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily. Having said if there is no cause of action then writ petition will have to be rejected, the definition of sub-Article (2) of Article 226 came to be examined and it came to be held by Hon’ble Apex Court that even if a small fraction of cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of the Court, then the Court before which petition is filed will have jurisdiction to examine the merits of the claim made in the petition. In the said case, issue of validity of parliamentary legislation was under consideration and on facts it came to be held that High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition. 16. In the event of writ petition being filed questioning constitutional validity of a parliamentary legislation, whether interim or final, keeping in view provisions contained in sub-Article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it will have to be necessarily held that issuance of writ under clause (1) of Article 226 will have the effect of it throughout territory of India which would be subject to applicability of such Act and as such petition would be maintainable before any Court or in other words, issue of territorial jurisdiction would be inconsequential. 17. Hon’ble Apex Court was also examining the issue regarding Forum Conveniens in KUSUM INGOTS case referred to supra namely, whether part of cause of action or fraction of cause of action if having arisen in a particular State would entitled the party to seek for relief before the said Court within whose territorial jurisdiction High Court is located and by applying doctrine of Forum Conveniens it was held even if a part of cause of action arises, it will have to be necessarily held as petition being maintainable. It has also been held that in appropriate cases, Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of Forum Conveniens. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in KUSUM INGOTS case as under: Forum conveniens- “30. It has also been held that in appropriate cases, Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of Forum Conveniens. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in KUSUM INGOTS case as under: Forum conveniens- “30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the – territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.” 18. Yet again while examining meaning of cause of action, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS vs. HARIBOX SWALRAM & OTHERS reported in (2004) 9 SCC 86 has held that cause of action as understood in civil proceedings means every fact if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. It has been held, if bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant then it can be held, as cause of action having arisen within territorial jurisdiction of said Court. However, if facts pleaded are such that which have no nexus to the lis involved in the case and such facts would not give rise for the cause of action then it does not confer territorial jurisdiction over such Court. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION’s case while explaining as to what constitutes cause of action as under: 10. Under Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is empowered to issue writs, orders or directions to any Government, authority or person exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. Cause of action as understood in the civil proceedings means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. Cause of action as understood in the civil proceedings means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. To put it in a different way, it is bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. ( AIR 2002 SC 126 ) in the context of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, it has been explained that each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court’s territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the list that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned. A similar question was examined in State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Swaika Properties ( AIR 1985 SC 1289 ). Here certain properties belonging to a company which had its registered office in Calcutta were sought to be acquired in Jaipur and a notice under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act was served upon the company at Calcutta. The question which arose for consideration was whether the service of notice at the head office of the company at Calcutta could give rise to a cause of action within the State of West Bengal to enable the Calcutta High Court to exercise jurisdiction in a matter where challenge to acquisition proceedings conducted in Jaipur was made. It was held that the entire cause of action culminating in the acquisition of the land under Section 152 of the Rajasthan Act arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court and it was not necessary for the company to plead the service of notice upon them at Calcutta for grant of appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notice issued by the Rajasthan Government under Section 52 of the Act. It was thus held that Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.” On facts, Hon’ble Apex Court found in NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION’s case that conclusion of contract having taken place at Calcutta by itself would not give rise for the Calcutta High Court to clutch jurisdiction under Article 226(1) of the Constitution. In asmuch as, facts as obtained in the said case indicated that Textile Mills was situated at Bombay and supply of cloth was made by them in its factory at Bombay and money was paid at Bombay which constituted substantial part of cause of action to sue at Bombay and not at Calcutta. Accordingly, on facts, it came to be held by Hon’ble Apex Court that no part of cause of action had arisen at Calcutta or merely because contract got concluded at Calcutta it would not give rise for cause of action at Calcutta and as such, it was held that Calcutta High Court did not have jurisdiction. 19. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SRI NASIRUDDIN vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL reported in (1975) 2 SCC 671 has explained the expression ‘cause of action’ and the manner in which expression ‘cause of action’ is to be understood in application to Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “37. The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court is incorrect. It is unsound because the expression “cause of action” in an application under Article 226 would be as the expression is understood and if the cause of action arose because of the appellate order or the revisional order which came to be passed at Lucknow then Lucknow would have jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the areas in Oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of the person applying for a writ. In such case an adverse appellate order might be the cause of action. The expression “cause of action” is well-known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises wholly within the specified Oudh areas, it is indisputable that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter. The expression “cause of action” is well-known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises wholly within the specified Oudh areas, it is indisputable that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter. If the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas in Oudh it would be open to the litigant who is the dominus litis to have his forum conveniens. The litigant has the right to go to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. In such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular Court. The choice is by reason of the jurisdiction of the Court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. Similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen part within specified areas in Oudh and part outside the specified Oudh areas, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings either at Allahabad or Lucknow. The Court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Court rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action. 20. Subsequently, in RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES’ ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS reported in (2001) 2 SCC 294 , Hon’ble Apex Court following dicta laid down in NASIRUDDIN’s case referred to supra, has amplified expression ‘cause of action’ to mean circumstances forming infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action or in other words it has been held that in the wider sense, it means necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit including not only the infraction of the right, but infraction coupled with the right itself. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court as under: “17. The expression “cause of action” has acquired a judicially – settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in “cause of action”. It has to be left to be determined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises. The Chief Justice of the High court has not been conferred with the legislative competence to define cause of action or to declare where it would be deemed to have arisen so as to lay down artificial or deeming test for determining territorial jurisdiction over an individual case or class of cases. The permanent Bench at Jaipur has been established by the Presidential Order issued under sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act. The territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench at Jaipur is to be exercised in respect of the cases arising in the specified districts. Whether the case arises from one of the specified districts or not so as to determine the jurisdictional competence to hear by reference to territory bifurcated between the principal seat and the Bench seat, shall be an issue to be decided in an individual case by the Judge or Judges hearing the matter if a question may arise in that regard. The impugned explanation appended to the Order of the Chief Justice dated 23-12-1976 runs counter to the Presidential Order and in a sense it is an inroad into the jurisdiction of the Judges hearing a particular case or cases, pre-empting a decision to be given in the facts of individual case whether it can be said to have arisen in the territory of a particular district. The High Court is right to taking the view which it has done.” 21. The High Court is right to taking the view which it has done.” 21. Thus, keeping the principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment, it will have to be examined as to whether this Court is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in question on merits and whether cause of action pleaded in the petition either wholly or partly would give rise for cause of action for the petitioner to maintain present writ petition and whether on account of petitioner’s registered office as well as Corporate office being located at Bangalore is sufficient to hold this Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ petition. In other words, it will have to be examined whether petitioner has established that a legal right claimed has been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent which has given rise to cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof until and unless it is established that such legal right has been infringed by respondent within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it cannot be gain said by the petitioner that writ petition would be maintainable before this Court. 22. In this background, it will have to be examined as to whether averments made in the writ petitions, even assumed to be correct, would disclose that even part of cause of action has arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Court for institution of present writ petition before this Court. 23. Perusal of the averments in the writ petition does not even remotely suggest about any averment having been made in the petition with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court except stating in paragraph 22 to the following effect: “22. The petitioner having no method to produce the Packing List of the Mining Company and having no other alternative remedy the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on the following grounds amongst others which are urged without prejudice to each other.” 24. To the pointed question by Court to the learned Sr. To the pointed question by Court to the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for petitioner as to whether any specific averment has been made in the writ petition to demonstrate that petitioner having averred in the writ petition with regard to territorial jurisdiction, he has fairly answered the same in the negative. However, he was quick in contending that said issue does not arise at all and only after statement of objections was filed by the respondent contending interalia that this Court lacks jurisdiction, rejoinder came to be filed by petitioner and in the rejoinder, it has been specifically contended that at paragraph 9 as to how this writ petition is maintainable and this Court having jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. In that view of the matter, plea raised in the rejoinder is extracted below: 9. Re-para 3 and 3.1: The petitioner submits that reference to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India clearly establishes that the Writ Petition is maintainable. The relief claimed is with respect to Annexure “G”. The said Annexure “G” having been addressed to the petitioner at Bangalore, this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction. These facts are borne from records and cannot be denied. Hence, the entire cause of action or part of the cause of action has arisen in Bangalore, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. It is clear that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction. The Judgment in Union of India and others v/s Adani Exports relied upon by the respondent is wholly inapplicable on the facts of this case, as none of the facts as set out therein arise herein. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that: (a) The registered office and the corporate office of the petitioner are at Bangalore. (b) The petitioner carry on their business of import from Bangalore. (c) Orders for import are placed and executed at Bangalore. (d) Documents and payment for import are sent/made at Bangalore. (e) The letter of the respondent No. 2 (Annexure “G”) was addressed to the petitioner at Bangalore and received at Bangalore. (f) All Customs authorities have addressed and entertained correspondence with the Petitioner Company at Bangalore address. (g) The material imported through Delhi, was refined at the plant of the Petitioner and the final product was received at Bangalore and partially used by the Petitioner’s Factory at Bangalore and partially sold at Bangalore. (f) All Customs authorities have addressed and entertained correspondence with the Petitioner Company at Bangalore address. (g) The material imported through Delhi, was refined at the plant of the Petitioner and the final product was received at Bangalore and partially used by the Petitioner’s Factory at Bangalore and partially sold at Bangalore. (h) All legal consequences are attributable and recoverable from the Petitioner Company at Bangalore. He would also hasten to add that communication dated 18.06.2013 (Annexure-G) issued by respondent itself would suggest that it is addressed to the office of the petitioner which is located at Bangalore and as such, this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. 25. Petitioner has sought for the following two reliefs: (a) Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction and quash letter dated 18.06.2013 issued by the respondent No. 2 bearing C. No. VIII (12)/I&G/Gr.III/Ch-71/Misc. 34/2011/1565/18/6/13 (Annexure “G”) as illegal and void abinitio. (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring that condition No. 34(b) an 34(c) of Notification No. 12/2012- Customs dated 17.03.2012 (Annexure “A”) has stood complied by virtue of Packing List and Assay Certificate of the Perth Mint.” Perusal of the communication dated 18.06.2013 (Annexure – G) would indicate that it has been issued by the Office of Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), New Customs House, New Delhi – 110 037 calling upon the petitioner to submit packing list within a week from the mining company in respect of all past imports of Gold Dore Bars namely, which petitioner had imported from Perth Mint, Australia. Reason for issuance of impugned communication to the petitioner by first respondent was on account of 56 consignments of Gold Dore Bars imported by the petitioner during the period 17.07.2012 to 21.02.2013. It is not in dispute that Consignor of said consignment is International Commodities Inc. Perth Mint, Australia as evidenced from Annexure-L. Consignor has sent the consignment to the Consignee i.e., to the petitioner by Air Way bill which is at Annexure – L and name of the addressee or consignee as indicated in the said Air Way bill produced by petitioner reads as under: “RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED PLOT NO. Perth Mint, Australia as evidenced from Annexure-L. Consignor has sent the consignment to the Consignee i.e., to the petitioner by Air Way bill which is at Annexure – L and name of the addressee or consignee as indicated in the said Air Way bill produced by petitioner reads as under: “RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED PLOT NO. 80-81, SECTOR – 7 IIE SIDCUL, PANTNAGAR UTTARAKHAND INDIA – 263145” Said Air cargo consigned to petitioner has been unloaded or delivered at Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi. Custom House Agent of petitioner has got cleared this consignment at Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi and on such clearance of goods by the Customs authorities, petitioner through its transport agent has transported the consignment to its refinery at Uttarakhand for processing these Gold Dore Bars so imported. Thus, it would emerge from this chain of events that importation has taken place from Australia to New Delhi, goods are cleared at New Delhi and consignment after clearance from the Customs authorities at Delhi has been transported to Uttarakhand and only issue involved in the present writ petition relates to importation of consignment from Australia to Delhi. Thus, when facts on hand are examined in this factual background, the moot question that would arise for consideration would be as to whether ‘cause of action’ for filing of this writ petition has arisen either in part or wholly within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court? When answer to this question is searched on the basis of the documents annexed to the writ petition and the transaction made by the petitioner which has resulted in importation of Gold Bars from Australia to India, it would indicate that the consignment of Gold has been imported by the petitioner from Australia and delivered at Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi. It is not in dispute that the Custom House Agent of the petitioner having cleared the goods at Delhi and thereafter it has been transported to Uttarakhand. 26. Though Mr. It is not in dispute that the Custom House Agent of the petitioner having cleared the goods at Delhi and thereafter it has been transported to Uttarakhand. 26. Though Mr. S.S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel would vehemently contend that Registered Office of the petitioner being located at Bangalore and impugned notice dated 18.06.2013 (Annexure-G) having been issued by the second respondent to the petitioner’s address at Bengaluru and as such, the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, at the cost of repetition, it will have to be held that mere location of the registered office or the receipt of communication at the registered office would not amount to infringement of any legal right of the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hon’ble Apex Court under identical circumstances while examining as to whether receipt of communication or location of the office would cloth such High Court the jurisdiction to examine the writ petition on merits has held in the case of OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION vs. UTPAL KUMAR BASU AND OTHERS reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711 that mere location of the Registered office or receipt of communication would not give rise for cause of action. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that present writ petition before this Court would not be maintainable since no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 27. As already noticed herein above, the consignment belonging to the petitioner has been received at Delhi from Australia and on same being cleared at Air Cargo Complex, Delhi petitioner has taken delivery of the said consignment at Delhi and transported it to Uttarakhand. As such, no part of the cause of action either wholly or in part has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court so as to enable this court to examine as to whether the petitioner’s alleged legal right had been infringed. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, the irresistible conclusion that will have to be drawn by this Court is, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to examine the writ petition on merits since no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 28. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) Writ petition is hereby dismissed as not maintainable before this Court. 28. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) Writ petition is hereby dismissed as not maintainable before this Court. (2) However, it is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the claim made in the writ petition and same is kept open. (3) Costs made easy. Ordered accordingly.