Territorial jurisdiction is crucial in determining the admissibility of a petition, and the location of the cause of action and the pleadings in the petition are essential factors in establishing territorial jurisdiction.

Heard.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for calling of the records of Public Notice No. PS7/2015 from File No. XVI/13/13/N/PS/ CC/2015 dated 14-9-2015 issued by respondent No. 4 and after perusing the same quashed and set aside the same as it has been issued contrary to the public policy and constitutional guarantee of equality.

3. The petitioner deals in the business of poppy seeds. The petitioner imports the poppy seeds for its business from various countries including Turkey. Since the business of import of poppy seeds is controlled by respondent No. 4-The Narcotics Commissioner, respondent No. 4, in exercise of his powers, has issued a public notice dated 14-9-2015. The said public notice, which concerns the import from Turkey, provides that the applicants, who are in category 'A' and have imported poppy seeds from Turkey to India at least for three financial years during the last five financial years, will be allotted a quantity from the provisional country cap of Turkey on the basis of average ratio of the import. It further provides that the importers, who are categorized under category 'B', shall be given the balance amount of provisional quota after allocation is done as per clause (a) of the said notice. It is the submission of the petitioner that the categorization in two categories; category 'A' and category 'B', is violative of mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as it discriminates between the traders and importers.

4. However, when the matter was listed yesterday, we were prima facie of the view that Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court will not be having territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition in as much as no part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. As such, we requested Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Deo, learned A.S.G.I. to enlighten us on the issue.

5. Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 2966 and Alchemist Limited and another vs. State Bank of Sikkim and others, 2007(4) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 586 = AIR 2007 SC 1812, submitted that even if a little fact, which forms the part of facts for cause of action, arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Bench will have a territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He submitted that the petitioner conducts its business at Nagpur. He submitted that the perusal of registration granted by respondent No. 4 would reveal that the registration is granted to the petitioner on the address of the petitioner at Nagpur. He further submitted that on account of the illegal circular/notice issued by respondent No. 4, the business of the petitioner is adversely affected at Nagpur and as such these facts, which form a part of facts for the cause of action, will enable the petitioner to file the petition at Nagpur and this Court will have a territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.

6. On the contrary, Shri Deo, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the respondents-Union of India, relying on the various cases right from the case of State of Rajasthan and others vs. M/s Swaika Properties and another, (1985) 3 SCC 217, submitted that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench and as such this Court will not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

7. The law, by now, is well settled right from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others vs. M/s Swaika Properties and another (cited supra). Even if the part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench, then this Bench will have a territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. We find that various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court are on the same line. Though the judgments are in