Full Judgment Text
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2401/2015 & CM Appls. 4312, 6752/2015
MS STADMULLER GABRIELE, GERMAN NATIONAL
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Pandey with Mr. Salil
Ahuja and Mr. Manmohan, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjib K. Mohanty, Sr. Central
Government Counsel for R-1 to 3
th
% Date of Decision: 17 March, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
th
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26
February, 2015 passed on a revision application filed by the petitioner under
Section 15 of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
th
2. On 11 March, 2015, this Court, while granting an interim order in
favour of the petitioner, had directed the Additional District Magistrate,
North Goa to produce the record. Till date, none has entered appearance on
behalf of the State of Goa. In fact, the State of Goa has no standing counsel
in this Court.
3. Both the counsel state that the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which
has concurrent jurisdiction, would be the convenient forum to deal with the
W.P.(C) 2401/2015 Page 1 of 4
present case. This Court is in agreement with the view of both the counsel.
In fact, a Five Judge Bench of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd.
Vs. Union of India & Ors. 181 (2011) DLT 658 (LB) has held as under:-
"31. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means
that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the
convenience of all the parties before it. The convenience in its
ambit and sweep would include the existence of more
appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the
lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for just
adjudication of the controversy and such other ancillary
aspects. The balance of convenience is also to be taken note of.
Be it noted, the Apex Court has clearly stated in the cases of
Kusum Ingots (supra), Mosaraf Hossain Khan (supra) and
Ambica Industries (supra) about the applicability of the
doctrine of forum conveniens while opining that arising of a
part of cause of action would entitle the High Court to
entertain the writ petition as maintainable.
32. The principle of forum conveniens in its ambit and sweep
encapsulates the concept that a cause of action arising within
the jurisdiction of the Court would not itself constitute to be the
determining factor compelling the Court to entertain the
matter. While exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot be totally
oblivious of the concept of forum conveniens. The Full Bench
in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has not kept in view
the concept of forum conveniens and has expressed the view
that if the appellate authority who has passed the order is
situated in Delhi, then the Delhi High Court should be treated
as the forum conveniens. We are unable to subscribe to the
said view.
33. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to modify
the findings and conclusions of the Full Bench in New India
Assurance Company Limited (supra) and proceed to state our
conclusions in seriatim as follows
(a) The finding recorded by the Full Bench that the sole
cause of action emerges at the place or location where the
W.P.(C) 2401/2015 Page 2 of 4
tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority is situate and
the said High Court (i.e., Delhi High Court) cannot decline to
entertain the writ petition as that would amount to failure of
the duty of the Court cannot be accepted inasmuch as such a
finding is totally based on the situs of the tribunal/appellate
authority/revisional authority totally ignoring the concept of
forum conveniens.
(b) Even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within
the jurisdiction of this court, a writ petition would be
maintainable before this Court, however, the cause of action
has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case of
Alchemist Ltd. (supra).
(c) An order 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. The
High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction
by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.
(d) The conclusion that where the appellate or revisional
authority is located constitutes the place of forum conveniens
as stated in absolute terms by the Full Bench is not correct as
it will vary from case to case and depend upon the lis in
question.
(e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise
jurisdiction under Article 226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked
in a malafide manner is too restricted / constricted as the
exercise of power under Article 226 being discretionary cannot
be limited or restricted to the ground of malafide alone.
(f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum
conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to be
scrutinized by the High Court depending upon the factual
matrix of each case in view of what has been stated in Ambica
Industries (supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. (supra).
W.P.(C) 2401/2015 Page 3 of 4
(g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench
in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) “that since
the original order merges into the appellate order, the place
where the appellate authority is located is also forum
conveniens” is not correct.
(h) Any decision of this Court contrary to the conclusions
enumerated hereinabove stands overruled."
(emphasis supplied)
4. Consequently, the present writ petition and pending applications are
dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file the present writ petition in the
High Court of Bombay at Goa.
5. Since learned counsel for the petitioner states that fresh writ petition in
the High Court of Bombay at Goa shall be filed within a period of eight
weeks, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the
petitioner for a period of eight weeks in pursuance to the impugned order.
Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
MANMOHAN, J
MARCH 17, 2016
NG
W.P.(C) 2401/2015 Page 4 of 4