Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Private Ltd vs Coal India Limited & Ors on 19 January, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
January 19,
2017
R.C.
W.P. 8055 (W) OF 2016
Kala Coke and Chemicals
Private Ltd.
Vs.
Coal India Limited & Ors.
=-=-=-
Ms.Vineeta Meharia
Mr.Amit Kumar Nag
...for Petitioner
Mr. Saikat Roy Choudhury
Mr. Aritra Ghosh
...for State
The petitioner assails imposition of
washery recovery charge by the Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL).
The learned advocate for the
petitioner submits that BCCL is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Coal India Limited
(CIL). She submits that, CIL does not
transact the nature of business involved in
the present petition. The subsidiaries of
CIL such as BCCL transact such business.
CIL decides the police to be followed by its
subsidiaries in such cases. The policy
decisions of CIL are binding on BCCL. The
CIL has formulated a policy and a rate
chart, which is at page 46 of the writ
2
petition. She submits that, BCCL in
derogation with such policy itself of CIL
has imposed washery recovery charges on
the petitioner. In support of the contention
that policy decision of CIL is binding on
BCCL, the learned advocate for the
petitioner relies upon 1997 (1) Calcutta
High Court Notes 67 (M/s. S.J. Coke
Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr.-Vs-Coal India
Ltd. & Ors.).
The learned advocate for the
petitioner submits that, CIL has its head
office within the territorial jurisdiction of
Kolkata. She submits that, in view of
policy decision of CIL being acted upon in
violation by BCCL and it being the
incumbent duty of CIL to ensure that its
subsidiary, namely, BCCL follows its
policy directions and CIL failing to make
BCCL adhere to its policy decisions and
such failings of CIL happening at the head
offie of CIL situate within jurisdiction, this
Hon'ble Court has the territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the present writ
petition. She submits that, Article 226 of
the Constitution of India has two parts
with regard to jurisdiction. Clause 1 of
Article 226 allows a High Court to
entertain a writ petition against the State
or an authority under Article 12 having its
had office or principal office or registered
3
office within its territorial jurisdiction to
entertain a writ petition irrespective of the
place at which the cause of actions had
arisen. The sites of the registered office or
the head office or the principal office of
state or an authority under Article 12
stated to be situated within its territorial
jurisdiction is sufficient for such Court to
assume jurisdiction irrespective of the
place where the cause of action for such
proceedings had arisen. She submits that,
Clause 2 of Article 226 and Clause 1 are
independent to each other. In support of
such contention, the learned advocate for
the petitioner relies upon 1992 (2) CHN 80
(Bharat Coking Coal Limited-Vs-Jharia
Talkies & Cold Storage Private Ltd.), 1989
(1) CHN (Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat &
Anr.-Vs-Union of India & Ors), 2005 (2)
CHN (Eastern Coalfields Ltd.-Vs-Indradeo
Yadav & Ors.) and 2007 (3) CHN (Ashok
Kumar Saboo (HUF) & Anr.-Vs-
Hindusthan Paper Corporation Limited &
Ors.)
The learned advocate for the
petitioner refers to the order dated June
16, 2016 passed in the present writ
petition. She submits that, by such order
the issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction
for the High Court to entertain a writ
petition was noted on the basis of the ratio
4
laid down in (2008) 3 Supreme Court
cases 456 (Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.-
Vs-Kalyan Banerjee). She submits that in
Kalyan Banerjee (supra), the Division
Bench of this Hon'ble Court has taking
into considertion 2009 (2) Calcutta High
Court Notes 1 (Zafar Khan-Vs-Coal India
Limited & Ors.) has found the Court to
have territorial jurisdiction to entertain
such writ petition. She submits that, this
Hon'ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to
entertain and try the present writ petition
in view of the sites of the head office of CIL
to be within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Hon'ble Court.
The learned advocate for the
respondents submits that, this Hon'ble
Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. He submits that the contract between the petitioner and BCCL was entered into at a place outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The registered office of the BCCL is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. No part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. He relies upon Kalyan Banerjee (supra) and (1994) 4 Supreme Court cases 710 (Aligarh Muslim University-Vs-Vinay 5 Engineering Enterprises Private Ltd.) in support of his contentions.
Whether this Hon'ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the writ petition is the first issue falling for consideration. In the event, the answer to the first issue is in the affirmative, then only the issues should be taken up for consideration.
The petitioner had entered into a contract with BCCL outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The parties had discharged their respective obligations under such contract at places outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Curt. These are admitted facts.
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has two parts so far as the jurisdiction of a High |Court to entertain and try writ petition is concerned. Clause 1 of Article 226 permits a High Court to assume jurisdiction where the registered office or the head office or the principal office of the State or an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is situated within its territorial jurisdiction.
Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India speaks of the power of the High Court to assume jurisdiction in the event a part of the cause of action or the whole of the cause of action for the 6 proceedings has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of such High Court.
In the present case, the petitioner is seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court on the basis of Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India, on the statement that, CIL has its head office within the territorial jurisdiction and that, a policy of the CIL which is binding upon the BCCL is sought to be acted in breach by BCCL. In such context, according to the petitioner, the place where the cause of action for has arisen is immaterial since the CIL has its head office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.. In view of Article 226 (1), this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.
The cause of action pleaded in the writ petition must have some nexus with the State or the authority under Article 12 for the Court to assume jurisdiction on the basis of Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India. Since the CIL has its head office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner does not have a subsisting jural relationship between itself and CIL. The jural relationship is between the petitioner and BCCL. On the basis of such jural relationship, the entire cause of action of 7 the petitioner had arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The breach of the policy of CIL assuming that there is a breach by BCCL, has happened outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner does not have a cause of action against CIL nor can it sue CIL on the basis of the alleged breach of the policy of CIL by BCCL.
Kalyan Banerjee (supra) is a case where the entire cause of action for such proceedings arose outside the jurisdiction of the Court. It has held that only because of the head office of the company was situated within the State of West Bengal, the same by itself will not confer any jurisdiction upon the concerned Court, particularly when the head office had nothing to do with the order of of punishment passed against the delinquent employee.
Kalyan Banerjee (supra), was considered in Jafar Khan (supra). In Jafar Khan (supra) an employee of CIL was involved. CIL has its head office in Kolkata. The employee in Jafar Khan (supra) had worked for a substantial period in the State of West Bengal. On superannuation, the employee wanted correction of the date of birth in the records of CIL, which has its head office in 8 Kolkata. In such circumstances, Jafar Khan (supra) is of the view that, this Hon'ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to determine such writ petition.
The other authorities cited on behalf of the writ petitioner on the point of jurisdiction are prior to Kalyan Banerjee (supra). Such authorities are of Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. In view of Kalyan Banerje (supra), I am not in a position to hold that this Hon'ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
In such circumstances, W.P. 8055 (W) OF 2016 is dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
( DEBANGSU BASAK, J. )