Dipak Misra, C.J.

Regard being had to the commonality of the primary controversy relating to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi being involved in these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and the said issue is adverted to and dealt with by a singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we shall adumbrate the facts in W.P.(C) No. 6570/2010.

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

3. Before we proceed to analyze and appreciate the ratio in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra), we think it apposite to have a brief resume of the necessitous facts in the present writ petition. As is evident, in invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legal defensibility of the order No. 214 - 215/10-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 rejected concurring with the view of the Commissioner (Appeal-I), Customs & Central Excise, Indore whereby the appellate authority has affirmed 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).

4. It is undisputed 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 : Central Excise & Service Tax at Indore. The petitioner, as is evident, has knocked at the doors of this Court for exercise of its inherent jurisdiction solely on the ground that the revisional authority, 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 urged in the petition that it is the Joint Secretary who is answerable to justify his order and, hence, this Court can dwell upon the controversy. In the grounds of the writ petition, reliance has been placed on New India Assurance Company Limited (supra).

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

6. Before we scan the ratio laid down in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) by the Full Bench in its exactitude, it is apposite to refer 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, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

(2) The power conferred on a High Court by clause (1) shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid const