The advance annual license fee has been demanded from the petitioner, this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J., in the matter JITENDRA SINGH & ORS V. UNION OF INDIA & ANR, W.P. (C) 9958/2021.
In this case, the petitioner submits that that this Court would have territorial jurisdiction as the Railway Board is situated in Delhi. He submits that the demand raised by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager is contrary to the directions issued by the Railway Board at Delhi.
The council relies on a decision of a coordinated 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.
The authority also mentions that the action would also not accrue within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. They also spoke about Article 226 of the Constitution which speaks about the:
- “Power of High Courts to issue certain writs”
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 about which it exercises jurisdiction. Under Article 226 (2), the High Court has the power to issue the 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.
The learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in Jayswal Neco Ltd. (supra) is misplaced since the said judgment does not further the case of the petitioner. Also, The Counsel for the Petitioner contends that as the cause of action has arisen in Delhi, this Court would have jurisdiction. The subject Railway Station in respect of which the action has been taken is situated in Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The Demand letter has been issued also from the same place and the seat of the authority that has raised a demand.
Petitioner is not aggrieved by any action or inaction on the part of the Railway Board. He contends that the demand raised by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, is contrary to the directions of the Railway Board which is situated in Delhi.
The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it was of the opinion that, neither the authority i.e. the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager had its seat in Delhi, nor any action had been taken by the authority within the territory in respect of which this court exercises jurisdiction, this Court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. All rights and contentions of parties are reserved.