DIPAK MISRA

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 of 2010.

Expressing doubt with regard to the correctness and soundness of the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2010 Delhi 43; [2011] 166 Comp Cas 87 (Delhi) [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.

Before we proceed to analyse and appreciate the ratio decidendi in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2010 Delhi 43; [2011] 166 Comp Cas 87 (Delhi) [FB], 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 Order No. 214-15/10-Cus, dated July 9, 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 (Appeals - I), Customs and 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 Notification No. 68/2007-Cus, (NT) and condition No. 8(F) of Notification No. 103/2008-Cus (NT).

It is the admitted position that the petitioner - industry is situate at Industrial Area, Q-5-6, Ghirongi, District Bhind, Malanpur in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The initial order was passed on May 30, 2009, by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs ICD, Malanpur, District Bhind (MP). The appellate order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - I, Customs and Central Excise and Service Tax at Indore (MP).

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 Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2010 Delhi 43; [2011] 166 Comp Cas 87 (Delhi) [FB].

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

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