The High Court of Delhi, while deciding the W.P. © No. 14869 of 2004, on 13/02/2009, in re : UAE EXCHANGE CENTRE LTD vs U.O.I. observed as follows : -

QUOTE : We would like to touch upon the well engrafted principles, with respect to, the exercise of writ jurisdiction by Courts, in such like matters. Essentially, when superior courts exercise the power of judicial review in respect of orders, deisions or, as in the instant case, a ruling of administrative quasi-judicial authority or a judicial authority, it looks at the decision making process and not at the decision itself. A superior court is not expected to substitute its view with that of the authority whose decision is impugned before it as long as the view taken by the authority, is a plausible view which is free from errors of jurisdiction or errors apparent on the face of the record. The statement of law on this aspect of the matter, in respect of a quasi-judicial authority, has been very aptly enunciated in the judgement of seven Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of UJJAN BAI vs. STATE OF U.P. [AIR 1962 SC 1621 at page 1629 (para 15) reads as follows : -

“where a quasi judicial authority has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it does not lose its jurisdiction by coming to a wrong conclusion, whether it is wrong in law or in fact.”

It is now fairly well settled that superior courts can issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI where there is an error of law which is apparent on the face of record as these are akin to errors of jurisdiction as against mere errors of law. The statement of law in HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND (4th Edition. Vol.1 ( 1) Para 73 Page 127) best captures the accepted position in law. UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_del_wpc_14869]

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

 VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS errors apparent, judicial review, writ, writ jurisdiction, WRIT OF CERTIORARI

The High Court of Delhi, while deciding on 01/05/2009, the CEAC No. 10 of 2008 and CM Mos. 13457-58 and 14416 of 2008, in re: BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. Vs CCEX MEERUT, observed as follows : -

QUOTE : On a reading of Article 226 (1) of the Constitution, it will be palpably clear that without the next following provision, that is., sub-clause (2) a High Court may not have been empowered to issue a writ or order against a party which is not located within the ordinary territorial limits of that High Court. The power to issue writs against any person or Authority or Government even beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any High Court is no longer debatable. The rider or perquisite to the exercise of such power is that the cause of action must meaningfully arise within the territories of that particular High Court. It does not logically follow, however, that if a part of the cause of action arises within the territories over which the High Court holds sway, it must exercise that power rather than directing the petitioner to seek his remedy in any other High Court which is better suited to exercise jurisdiction for the reason that the predominant, substantial or significant part of the cause of action arises in that Court. In other words, any High Court is justified in exercising powers under Article 226 either if the person, Authority or Government is located within its territories or if the significant part of the cause of action has arisen within its territories. The rationale of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure would, therefore, also apply to Article 226 (2) of the Constitution. These considerations are aptly encapsulated in the term forum conveniens which refers to the situs where the legal action be most appropriately brought, considering the best interests of the parties and the public (see BLACK’s LAW DICTIONARY). The writ Court should invariably satisfy itself that its choosing is not mala fide or an example of forum shopping. UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com  and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_del_ceac_10]

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

 VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS Article 226, BLACK’s LAW DICTIONARY, Code of Civil Procedure, Constitution, encapsulated, forum conveniens, mala fide, order, predominant, rationale, significant, situs, substantial, territorial limits, writ