The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging an order of attachment issued by the Tax Recovery Officer if part of the cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction.

( 1 ) IN this writ application the petitioners who are trustees of a Public Charitable Trust (in short petitioner Trust) have challenged an order of attachment against shares owned by the petitioner Trust issued by the Tax Recovery Officer-II (Income Tax) Jaipur (in short TRO)under Rule 26 (1) (it) of the Second Schedule to the income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act) for an alleged demand against a private trust known as Raja Baldeodas Birla Santatikosh Trust (hereinafter referred to as private Trust ). The order of attachment is in respect of shares of Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd, owned by the petitioner Trust and registered in the name of its Trustees and lying in its possession at its office at Calcutta. The said shares were received by the petitioner Trust from another Public Charitable Trust namely Birla Jan Kalyan Trust which had in its turn received such shares from Private Trust as donation. The other two Trusts also filed writ application on similar ground challenging the orders of the ITRO attaching such shares owned and held by them. The writ petitions challenging the orders of attachment were moved by the said two trusts and the petitioner trust on the same day. The writ applications of the other two trusts were marked CR. No. 6549 (W) and 6550 (W) of 1977. This writ petition was heard earlier by Susanta Chatterjee, J. and at such hearing supplementary affidavit was filed incorporating facts subsequent to the filling of the writ petition and written submissions were also submitted. The judgement was reserved but was not delivered by Susanta Chatterjee, J. The records of the case were misplaced and have now been reconstructed.

( 2 ) THE case of the said two other Trusts being C. R. Nos. 6549 (W) and 6550 (W) of 1977 came up for final hearing before Mr. Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J- as he then was and were finally disposed of by the judgment dated July 30, 1992 reported as Anandilal Goenka and Ors v Tax Recovery Officer and Ors. in (1994) 208 ITR page 46. All the contentions raised and dealt with the Anandilal's case (supra) are involved in the instant writ petition. The facts and circumstance of Anandilal's case are identical with the present case and the said decision fully applies and should be followed in the instant case. The respondents have also not disputed that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are identical to that of Anandilal's case (supra) and the said decision is applicable.

( 3 ) MR. A. C. Maitra, learned Advocate on behalf of the revenue however has taken preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the writ petition in this court on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.

( 4 ) HE has further submitted that Anandilal's case (supra) should not be followed in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in case reported in AIR 1994 SC 3287. He has further submitted that in view of the decision in ONGC's case (supra) the decision in Anandilal's case (supra) which held that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition should be considered as overruled on the point and the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

( 5 ) IT is, therefore, necessary to consider whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. It has been submitted by Mr. Bajoria, learned Advocate for the petitioner that in ONGC's case the Supreme Court held on facts that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court.

( 6 ) HE has also submitted that it cannot however be disputed that in the event part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction. this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. It has been submitted that in the instant case there cannot be any dispute that part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petition is that the attached shares in question were