Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 730
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.
Dipak Bajaj, Son of Late Awat Ram Bajaj - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Department of Revenue & Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1209 of 2016
Decided on : 26-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amit Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Chandra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S. D. Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Satya Prakash Tripatty, Sr. S.C., Customs, Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, C.G.C.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the court for a writ application to be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Writ Application - Customs Act, 1982 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Rule 2(C) of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a non-resident Indian and a business man in the United Kingdom, had gold and foreign currency seized by Custom Officials in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner filed an application for compounding of the case before the Compounding Authority, which was rejected. The petitioner then filed a writ application seeking mandamus to allow the compounding application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cause of action did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and therefore, the writ application was not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Patna High Court, considering the territorial jurisdiction and the location of the Compounding Authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents and legal provisions to determine that the cause of action did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and therefore, the writ application was not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ application as devoid of merit.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. S. D. Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General to the respondents-Union of India regarding maintainability of this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court on the ground that entire cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Uttar Pradesh, hence, this writ application should not have been filed in the Patna High Court.
3. Contention of the learned counsel is that indisputably the petitioner claims to be a non-resident Indian and a business man in the United Kingdom. The Custom Officials seized gold and foreign currency from the possession of the petitioner at LCS, Sonauli in the district of Maharajganj in the State of Uttar Pradesh near Indo-Nepal Border. The petitioner was apprehend and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi and sent to judicial custody on 27.05.2014. Subsequently, prosecution of the petitioner was sanctioned and launched at Lucknow. The petitioner was released on bail by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on 29.01.2015 vide order passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18322 of 2014. The proceeding of adjudication for confiscation of the gold was also held and completed at Allahabad.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application dated 25.01.2016 vide Annexure-4 before the Compounding Authority for compounding of the aforesaid case. The term “Compounding Authority” is defined in Rule 2(C) of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 as follows:-
“Rule 2(C) Compounding Authority means the Chief Commissioner, Customs having jurisdiction over the place where the offence under the Custom Act, 1982 has been or alleged to have been committed”.
5. According to learned counsel, a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would make it abundantly clear that the Chief Commissioner, Customs having jurisdiction over the place where the offence was committed (in the present case in the State of Uttar Pradesh) is the Compounding Authority for the present case. Therefore, by necessary implication, the application of the petitioner vide Annexure-4 was filed before the Chief Commissioner having jurisdiction in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
6. Learned counsel has pointed out that the Chief Commissioner, Customs having seat at Patna is presently exercising territorial jurisdiction over the State of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand as the Compounding Authority. Therefore, the petitioner filed Annexure-4 for compounding before the Chief Commissioner having seat at Patna. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, this writ application was filed for issuance of mandamus commanding the respondent-authorities to allow the application of the petitioner dated 25.01.2016, vide Annexure-4. However, during pendency of the writ application, Annexure-4 was rejected by the Compounding Authority by order dated 16.01.2017 vide Annexure-4/2 to the counter affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner field I.A. No. 195 of 2017 seeking leave of this Court to amend the prayer portion by adding that appropriate writ/order be issued, setting aside order dated 16.01.2017 vide Annexure-4/2 issued under the signature of the Compounding Authority.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid factual position. However, submits that since the Compounding Authority passed the order at Patna, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court also. Article 226(2) reads as follows:-
“226 (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, 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, notwiths
