Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar Mehta And Ors. vs Haryana Financial Corporation And Ors. on 10 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003VIIAD(DELHI)218, I(2004)BC169, [2005]128COMPCAS772(DELHI), 107(2003)DLT366, 2003(71)DRJ348
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed
JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing impugned notices dated 02.07.1998 issued by the respondent No. 2 (Assistant Collector, Grade-I/II, 37, Tughlakabad Institutional Area, New Delhi) and the recovery certificate dated 21.01.1998 issued by the respondent No. 1 (Haryana Financial Corporation) at Chandigarh. The petitioners have also sought a writ of prohibition against the respondents 1 and 2 from taking any coercive action against the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid recovery notices and a recovery certificate.
2. At the threshold, the respondents have raised the question of territorial jurisdiction. The respondents state that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition and this question be decided first before examining the merits of the case. Accordingly, the question of territorial jurisdiction is being disposed of by this judgment.
3. The petitioners are the sons of late Sh. P.R. Mehta, who was a guarantor to a loan extended by the Haryana Financial Corporation to the respondent No. 3 company (M/s Ego Metal Works Pvt. Ltd) which was under liquidation.
4. The recovery certificate dated 21.01.1998 has been issued by the respondent No. 1 from Chandigarh and is addressed to the Collector at New Delhi with the request to affect the recovery from, inter alia, the petitioner and to remit the same to the Haryana Financial Corporation at the earliest. The recovery certificate has been issued u/s 3 of the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") for the recovery of Rs. 45, 26, 116/- due to the Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh from, inter alia, late Sh. P.R. Mehta (by now deceased) represented through his LRs (i.e., the petitioners herein). Based upon the said recovery certificate, the respondent No. 2 issued recovery notices dated 02.07.1998 to the petitioners herein stating therein that a sum of Rs. 45, 26, 116/- on account of Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh was recoverable from them as arrears of land revenue and directed them to deposit the dues by 13.07.1998, failing which further action for realisation of the same would be taken against them.
5. The petitioners have challenged these notices as well as the recovery certificate dated 21.01.1998. While the recovery certificate has been issued from Chandigarh, the recovery notices have been issued by the respondent No. 2 in Delhi itself. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition inasmuch as the petitioners have not received any notice from Chandigarh. The notices that they have received are those issued by the respondent No. 2 in Delhi. They further submit that an office of the respondent No. 1 is also situated at Delhi. The respondent No. 1 also works for gain and/or carries on business at Delhi and, accordingly, the Courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction to decide the present matter. On the other hand, respondent No. 1 submitted that this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. He submitted that the issuance of the notices by the respondent No. 2 is a mere ministerial function and the cause of action as such is the issuance of the recovery certificate which has been issued at Chandigarh. Accordingly, he submitted that any writ petition challenging the issuance of the recovery certificate dated 21.01.1998 lies only before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and not before this Court.
6. In this context, it would be relevant to notice a few provisions of the said Act. Section 2(a) defines 'Collector' to mean a Collector of the District and includes any person appointed by the State Government to perform the functions of a Collector under the said Act. Section 2(b) defines 'Corporation' to mean the Haryana Financial Corporation established under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and includes any other corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government which the State Government may, by notification specify. Section 3 of the said Act which relates to the recovery of certain dues as arrears of land revenue reads as under:-
"3 . Recovery of certain dues as arrears of land revenue.--(1) Where any sum is recoverable from a defaulter-
(a) by the State Government, such officer as it may, by notification, appoint in this behalf;
(b) by a Corporation or a Government company, the Managing Director thereof, shall determine the sum due from the defaulter.
(2) The Officer or the Managing Director, as the case may be, referred to in sub-section (1), shall send a certificate to the Collector mentioning the sum due from the defaulter and requesting that such sum together with the cost of proceedings be recovered as if were an arrear of land revenue.
(3) A certificate sent under sub-section (2) shall be conclusive proof of the matters stated therein and the Collector, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover the amount stated therein as an arrear of land revenue.
(4) No civil court shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any case; or
(b) to adjudicate upon or proceed with any pending case, relating to the recovery of any sum due as aforesaid from the defaulter. The proceedings relating to the recovery of the sums due from the defaulters, pending at the commencement of this Act in any civil court, shall abate."
7. It is, therefore, clear that the recovery proceedings are initiated by such officer as the State Government may appoint by notification or by the Managing Director by the issuance of a recovery certificate under Section 3 (2) of the said Act. It is also clear that this certificate is sent to the "Collector" as defined in the Act for the purposes of recovering the sum due as if it were arrears of land revenue. Section 3 (3) makes it clear that the recovery certificate under Section 3 (2) of the said Act shall be conclusive proof of the matters stated therein and the Collector, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover the amount stated therein as arrears of land revenue. From this, it becomes apparent that the Collector, who receives such a recovery certificate, has no role to play except to recover the amount stated in the recovery certificate as arrears of land revenue. He merely performs a ministerial function. He does not decide any lis and any action taken by him does not have the trappings of a qasi judicial function. As such, in the first instance, no writ of certiorari could at all be issued quashing the recovery notices dated 02.07.1998. This is one aspect of the matter.
8. The other and main aspect of the matter is that the cause of action entirely arose at Chandigarh where the recovery certificate under Section 3 (2) was issued. In the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors v. Swaika Properties & Anr: , the Supreme Court observed that cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. In that case, the Supreme Court held that mere service of notice under Section 52 (2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 on the respondents therein at their registered office at Calcutta, could not give rise to a cause of action within that territory unless the service of such a notice was an "integral part" of the cause of action. The Supreme Court further held that the answer to the question whether service of notice is integral part of cause of action within the meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution must depend upon the nature of impugned order giving rise to a cause of action. Again in the case of Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd: , the Supreme Court categorically observed that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the Court to decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. In particular, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned."
9. In this particular case, we have to examine, therefore, what is the actual grievance of the petitioner. The petitioners, in view of Section 3(3) of the said Act, cannot have any grievance with regard to the issuance of notices dated 02.07.1998 because these have been issued merely in compliance of the recovery certificate received by the respondent No. 2 from the Haryana Financial Corporation at Chandigarh. The respondent No. 2 had no option in the matter. He was not in any manner enjoined with any duty to examine the correctness or otherwise of the recovery certificate issued under Section 3(2) of the said Act. The issuance of the recovery certificate is conclusive proof of the matters stated therein. In fact, the actual cause of action is in respect of the recovery certificate which is the causa causae and it is well-known that causa causae est causa causati (the cause of a cause is the cause of the thing caused) and the cause of the cause is to be considered as the cause of the effect also (see: Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, p.220). Thus, the recovery notices are nothing but the effect and the cause, in point of fact, is the issuance of the recovery certificate. In other words, the recovery certificate is the causa sine qua non (a necessary or inevitable cause); a cause without which the effect in question could not have happened (see: Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, p.221). Sans the recovery certificate, the recovery notices could not have been issued. Thus, it is clear that the recovery notices dated 02.07.1998 cannot be set aside without the recovery certificate dated 21.01.1998 also being set aside. The recovery notices have no life of their own and must necessarily depend for their sustenance on the existence of the recovery certificate. If the petitioners are to succeed, they must challenge the recovery certificate and the cause of action for which arose entirely in Chandigarh. The recovery notices do not form an integral part of the cause of action. Thus, this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction. The petitioners are, however, granted liberty to approach the appropriate Court having jurisdiction in this matter. There shall be no orders as to costs.