SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
Rain CII Carbon Vizag Ltd & Anr.- Petitioners 
versus 
Union Of India Through The Secretary Department Of Commerce & Ors. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2557 of 2025 & CM APPLs.12089-12090 of 2025 
Decided on : 07-03-2025 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Syed Jafar Alam, Ms. Ankita Amarnath Kamath and Mr. Shivraj Berry, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, CGSC with Mr. Hussain Taqui, G.P., Mr. Amlaan Kumar and Mr. Vinayak Arun, Advocates

The doctrine of forum conveniens limits jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing that a court should not entertain cases where a more appropriate forum exists, regardless of where a part of the cause of action arises.

Headnote:

(A) Foreign Trade (Development & Regulations) Act, 1992 - Section 5 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ petition seeking quashing of rejection of Advance Authorisation application and challenging DGFT Notification No.68/2023 - The court addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction in the context of the doctrine of forum conveniens, emphasizing that mere issuance of a rejection letter from a different location does not confer jurisdiction, as the competent authority acted within its geographical limits. (Paras 4-29)

(B) Jurisdiction - The doctrine of forum conveniens dictates that even if some part of the cause of action arises within a High Court's jurisdiction, it does not compel the court to entertain the matter if a more appropriate forum exists. (Paras 16-28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash the rejection of its Advance Authorisation application for import of raw pet coke, asserting jurisdiction based on the location of the DGFT office in Delhi, despite its operations being primarily in Hyderabad and surrounding areas.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, as the competent authority's actions were confined to its jurisdiction in Hyderabad.

Issues: The key issues included the determination of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 and the applicability of the doctrine of forum conveniens.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that jurisdiction is not conferred merely by the location of the authority issuing a decision; the doctrine of forum conveniens must be applied to determine the appropriate jurisdiction based on the facts of the case.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking, inter alia, the following prayers:-

“i) Quash the Rejection Letter dated 05.02.2025 bearing File No. 09AX04000927AM25 and Deficiency Letter dated 15.01.2025 bearing File No. 09AX04000927AM25 issued by the Respondent No. 3/ Additional Director General of Foreign Trade;

ii) Issue a writ, order or other direction to the Respondents to grant Advance Authorisation to the Petitioners against their Application for Grant of Advance Authorisation dated 31.12.2024 bearing File No. 09AX04000927AM25;

iii) Issue a writ, order or other direction to the Respondents that raw pet coke (RPC) imports by the Petitioners for supply of calcined pet coke (CPC) to SEZ units in India are entitled to the grant of Advance Authorisation under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023;

iv) Issue a writ, order or other direction to the Respondents that the Petitioners are permitted to supply CPC to SEZ units in India by the order dated 15.02.2024 issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas read with the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 10.10.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 13029/1985 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India;

v) In the alternative and without prejudice to the above prayers, issue a writ, order or direction quashing the DGFT Notification No.68/2023 dated 07.03.2024, if and insofar as it purports to prohibit the supply of CPC by domestic calciners to SEZ units;

vi) Pending the captioned Petition, stay the Rejection Letter dated 05.02.2025;

vii) Pending the captioned Petition, permit the Petitioners to continue to supply CPC to SEZ units;

viii) Pending the final hearing and disposal of the present Writ Petition, permit the Petitioners to import requisite quantities of RPC and direct the Respondents to further issue necessary directions to the relevant authorities to treat the shipments received thereunder as exempt from any and all import duties as if covered by an Advance Authorisation.”

2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that by virtue of the order dated 09.10.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the import of 1.4 MMT of Raw Petroleum Coke (hereafter referred to as “RPC”) per annum in the Public Interest Litigation bearing W.P.(C) No. 13029/1985 captioned M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India. It is informed that the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 (hereafter referred to as “FTP”) was issued by the Central Government through the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereafter referred to as “the DGFT”) under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulations) Act, 1992 (hereafter referred to as “FT Act”). Chapter 4 of FTP refers to Advance Authorisation which is issued to allow duty free import of input, which is physically incorporated in export product including export to Special Economic Zone Units (hereafter referred to as “SEZ Units”). Chapter 7 relates to “Deemed Exports” which are goods that are entitled to Advance Authorisation as deemed exports.

3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.10.2023 directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (hereafter referred to as “CAQM”) in the National Capital Region to take a fresh look into all issues pertaining to petroleum coke after considering the inputs of persons and entities like the petitioner. It is stated that the CAQM vide its order dated 15.02.2024 directed that “Deemed Exports” by domestic calciners to SEZ Units is permissible. Pursuant thereto, DGFT amended its Import Policy permitting the import of RPC subject to certain terms and conditions. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted applications for Advance Authorisation on 31.03.2024, 20.04.2024 and 03.08.2024 for export of Calcined Pet Coke (hereafter referred to as “CPC”) to Vedanta SEZ Units. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the fourth application dated 31.12.2024 seeking Advance Authorisation for manufacture and export of CPC to Vedanta SEZ U

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top