The main legal point established in the judgment is that the concept of cause of action and forum conveniens are crucial in determining the territorial jurisdiction for entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Dipak Misra, C.J.

1. In view of the similitude of the principal controversy pertaining to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi being involved in these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and as the said issue is the only question of reference, it is being adverted to and dealt with by a singular order. For the sake of convenience, we shall adumbrate the facts in W.P.(C) No. 6570/2010.

2. Expressing doubt with regard to the correctness and soundness of the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Union of India and others, AIR 2010 Del 43 (FB), a Division Bench thought it appropriate to refer the matter for reconsideration by a Full Bench and, accordingly, a Full Bench was constituted and the Full Bench thought it appropriate that the matter should be considered by a larger Bench and, accordingly, the larger Bench has been constituted and the matter has been placed before us for the aforesaid purpose.

3. Before we proceed to analyze and appreciate the ratio decidendi in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra), it is seemly to exposit the necessitous primary facts averred in the present writ petition. The Petitioner, in invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has called in question the legal substantiality and sustainability of the order No. 214-15/10-Cus dated 9.7.2010, Annexure-1, passed by the Revisionary Authority, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, whereby the revision application preferred by the Petitioner has been dismissed concurring with the view expressed by the Commissioner (Appeal-I), Customs & Central Excise, Indore whereby the appellate authority has given the stamp of approval to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs ICD, Malanpur who had expressed the view that no drawback facility is admissible to the Petitioner as it had, by way of procuring duty free inputs under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, contravened Clause (ii) of the second proviso to Rule 3(1) of the Central Excise Drawback Rules, 1995 and also condition No. 7(F) of the notification No. 68/2007-Cus (NT) and condition No. 8(F) of the notification No. 103/2008-Cus (NT).

2 It is the admitted position that the Petitioner - industry is situate at Industrial Area, Q-5-6, Ghirongi, Dist. - Bhind, Malanpur in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The initial order was passed on 30.5.2009 by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs ICD, Malanpur, Dist. Bhind (M.P.). The appellate order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Customs and Central Excise & Service Tax at Indore (M.P.).

3 Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the revisional authority, the Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India solely on the foundation that the revisional authority, namely, the office of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, is in Delhi and, therefore, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the lis in question. It is proponed in the petition that it is the Joint Secretary who is answerable to justify his order and, ergo, this Court can and should dwell upon the controversy. In the grounds enumerated in the writ petition, reliance has been placed on the decision rendered in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra).

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and Mr. Atul Nanda, learned senior counsel as the Amicus Curiae.

7. At this juncture, we think it apposite to refer to the history of Article

226 of the Constitution of India. Initially, Article 226 of the Constitution of India read thus:

226. (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, prohi