Full Text
Translation output
3#
/o13.10.2011
Present: Mr. Dalip Mehra for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Mishra for the respondent no.2.
+W.P.(C) No. 5514/2010 & CM No. 10860/2010
*
Counsel for the respondent has raised objection to the. maintainability of the present petition on the ground that this court may not exercise writ jurisdiction in the present matter based on the recent
Present: Mr. Dalip Mehra for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Mishra for the respondent no.2.
+W.P.(C) No. 5514/2010 & CM No. 10860/2010
*
Counsel for the respondent has raised objection to the. maintainability of the present petition on the ground that this court may not exercise writ jurisdiction in the present matter based on the recent
JUDGMENT
of the Five judges Bench of this court.
Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Five judges
Bench in M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India in
W.P. (C) No. 6570!201 0. Counsel has also placed reliance on the order of this court in Sunshine Caterers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant
Provident Fund, W.P.(C) No. 4821!2011, where after placing reliance on the said judgment of the Five judges Bench, the learned Single judge also dismissed the similar petition based on lack of jurisdiction of this court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the present petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 4.6.2010, passed by the Employees' Provident
2011:DHC:15754
Fund Appellate Tribunal, office of which is located in Delhi. In the appeal the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the
Provident Fund Authority office of which was located at
Jamshedpur. The Five Judges Bench of this court in M/s. Sterling
Agro Industries Ltd.(supra) after disagreeing with the decision of the Full Bench of this court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. AIR 2010 Delhi 43(FB) held that the situs of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated, yet the same may not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits and the High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience.
In view of the abovesaid decision of the Five Judges
Bench of this court, this Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction in the present matter, merely because the situs of the office of the appellate tribunal is in Delhi.
The present petition is accordingly dismissed on this limited ground without expressing any view on the merits of this case.
Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to file a petition before the appropriate court of jurisdiction. The interim protection granted by this court vide order dated 24.8.2011 shall remain in force for a period of six weeks from the date of this order.
DASTI.
October 13, 2011 mg
~
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
\,IQ
Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Five judges
Bench in M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India in
W.P. (C) No. 6570!201 0. Counsel has also placed reliance on the order of this court in Sunshine Caterers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant
Provident Fund, W.P.(C) No. 4821!2011, where after placing reliance on the said judgment of the Five judges Bench, the learned Single judge also dismissed the similar petition based on lack of jurisdiction of this court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the present petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 4.6.2010, passed by the Employees' Provident
2011:DHC:15754
Fund Appellate Tribunal, office of which is located in Delhi. In the appeal the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the
Provident Fund Authority office of which was located at
Jamshedpur. The Five Judges Bench of this court in M/s. Sterling
Agro Industries Ltd.(supra) after disagreeing with the decision of the Full Bench of this court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. AIR 2010 Delhi 43(FB) held that the situs of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated, yet the same may not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits and the High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience.
In view of the abovesaid decision of the Five Judges
Bench of this court, this Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction in the present matter, merely because the situs of the office of the appellate tribunal is in Delhi.
The present petition is accordingly dismissed on this limited ground without expressing any view on the merits of this case.
Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to file a petition before the appropriate court of jurisdiction. The interim protection granted by this court vide order dated 24.8.2011 shall remain in force for a period of six weeks from the date of this order.
DASTI.
October 13, 2011 mg
~
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
\,IQ