( 1 ) THE petitioner - M/s. Indian Charge Chrome - a company registered under the Companies act, 1956, having its registered office at bomikhal, P. O. Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar; Orissa, has filed this petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to grant exemption from payment of customs duty on spares and consumable items imported by the petitioner to meet the requirements of its captive power plant at Choudwar, District Cuttack, Orissa.

( 2 ) IT is incorporated in the petition that the petitioners were entitled to exemption from payment of customs duty on import of spares and consuinables upto 18th May, 1999 as recommended by respondent No. 4. Such exemption from payment of customs duty on import of spares and consumables subsequently up to 27. 1. 2000 was available on approval by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner, Ministry of Commerce, nizam Palace, Kolkatta. The petitioner company and other main contesting respondents are located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

( 3 ) BEFORE we scrutinize detailed facts and questions of law involved in this petition we would like to reflect on the legal position as crystalised by a series of authoritative judgments regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining this petition.

( 4 ) IN Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao reported as AIR 1953 SC 210, the Apex Court held that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject- to its jurisdiction. Secondly, the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be within those territories which clearly implies that they must be amenable to the jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories.

( 5 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in K. S. Rashid v. Income-tax investigation Commission and Ors. reported as AIR 1954 SC 207, held that High Court is invested with powers to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. This power is subject to two limitations; first limitation is that the power is to be exercised throughout the territories ill relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. The other limitation is that the person or authority to whom the High court is empowered to issue writs must be within jurisdictional territories of that court and this implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories.

( 6 ) IN O. N. G. C. v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. , (1994) 4 SCC 711, contract work was to be carried out in Gujarat. However, the advertisement inviting tenders was published in newspaper which was read at Calcutta. The contractor submitted the offer from Calcutta and made representations from Calcutta. Dispute having arisen, a petition was filed at Calcutta. Their Lordships have held :

(I) the power conferred by Clause (1) of Article 226 can be exercised by the high Court provided the cause of action wholly or any part had arisen within its territorial limits;

(II) merely because the advertisement was read at Calcutta and the contractor submitted the offer and made representations from Calcutta, they do not constitute "an integral part of the cause of action"; it cannot be said that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of calcutta High Court. Whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of averments made in the petition.

(III) that some event, however trivial and unconnected with the cause of action, occurring within the jurisdiction of a Court does not confer jurisdiction on the said Court; the litigant carrying the cause before