Honourable Chief Justice:

Admit. Learned Assistant Solicitor General waives service for the second respondent. By consent, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

2. The appellant is a company having its registered office in Pudukottai District. The appellant originally filed Writ Petition No.14908 of 2007 at Principal Bench at Chennai to quash the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal – South Zone Bench, Chennai (Tribunal in short) dated 3. 2007, whereby the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs.1 Crore as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal on merits. By order dated 17. 2007, this Court gave liberty to the appellant to file necessary applications for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for default and for rectification with relevant documents and the Tribunal was directed to consider the said applications and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appellant filed R.O.M. (Rectification of Mistake) Petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal revoked its earlier direction for deposit of Rs.1 Crore towards the tax dues, but directed the appellant to deposit Rs.20 Lakhs towards penalty as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal. The appellant again approached this Court in Writ Petition SR. No.121063 of 2007. The learned single Judge, however, relying upon a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Ram Rakh Vyas vs. The Union of India & Others, A.I.R. 1977 Rajasthan 243, held that since the appellant-company is situated in Pudukottai District, the subject matter of the writ petition squarely comes within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and the writ petition cannot be entertained at the Principal Seat.

3. We have heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P. Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the second respondent.

4. The short question that falls before us is whether the Principal Seat at Chennai has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Presidential Notification dated 7. 2004, whereby a permanent Bench at Madurai was constituted, inter alia reads as follows:

"THE MADRAS HIGH COURT (ESTABLISHMENT OF A PERMANENT BENCH AT MADURAI) ORDER, 2004

In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), the President, after consultation with the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, is pleased to make the following Order, namely :-

1. Short title and commencement:

.(1) This Order may be called the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004.

.(2) It shall come into force on 27. 2004.

2. Establishment of a permanent bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai:-

There shall be established a permanent bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai and such Judges of the Madras High Court, being not less than five in number, as the Chief Justice of that High Court may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Madurai in order to exercise the jurisdiction and powers for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the districts of Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli, Tuticorin, Madurai, Dindugal, Ramanathapuram, Virudhunagar, Sivaganga, Pudukottai, Thanjavur, Nagapattinam, Tiruchirapalli, Perambalur and Karur in the State of Tamil Nadu:

Provided that the Chief Justice of that High Court may, in his discretion, or that any case or class of cases arising in any such district shall be heard at Chennai." (emphasis supplied)

5. Before the learned single Judge, the appellant-petitioner argued that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed by the Tribunal at Chennai, and therefore, the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, and thus the writ petition would lie only at the Principal Bench of the High Court at Chennai. The learned single Ju