Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.:-- (Oral)

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, whereby enhanced advance annual license fee has been demanded from the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction as the Railway Board is situated in Delhi. He submits that the demand raised by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Uttar Pradesh is contrary to the directions issued by the Railway Board at Delhi.

3. Learned counsel relies on a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 02.07.2007 in W.P. (C) 2103/2007 titled Jayswal Neco Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., to contend that as the Railway Board is situated in Delhi, a Writ Petition would lie before this Court.

4. It is noticed that the petitioner impugns demand letters issued by Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

5. There is no grievance raised by the petitioner with regard to any action or inaction of the Railway Board.

6. Since the seat of the authority, whose action is impugned is not within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi and is located outside and further as the action impugned is with regard to a demand raised by the said authority, situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, cause of action would also not accrue within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

7. Article 226 of the Constitution lays down as under:-

“226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise 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, prohibitions, 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 by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories ********” (underlining supplied)

8. Under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution, the High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ to any person or authority which has its seat within the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Under Article 226 (2), the High Court has the power to issue writ to an authority, which though does not have its seat within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, but in respect of which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

9. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in Jayswal Neco Ltd. (supra) is misplaced inasmuch as the said judgment does not further the case of the petitioner.

10. In Jayswal Neco Ltd. (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Court had examined the provisions of Article 226 Constitution of India and by way of illustration specified the following four possibilities:-