1. Introduction

The case of Raichand & Co. & Anr. v. Director General Of Foreign Trade & Ors., adjudicated by the Calcutta High Court on March 17, 1998, addresses significant issues concerning the territorial jurisdiction of courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, importers of spices, challenged a notification issued by the Directorate of Foreign Trade, alleging that special importation favors were unlawfully granted to entities such as the National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED) and Spices Trading Corporation Limited (STCL). The core constitutional challenge invoked Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), arguing the notification resulted in discrimination and adversely impacted the petitioners' trading business in Calcutta.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Calcutta High Court meticulously examined the territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) of the Constitution, which empowers High Courts to issue certain writs. The respondents contested the court's jurisdiction, asserting that the principal authorities responsible for the impugned notification were located outside Calcutta. However, the Court held that the business operations of the petitioners within Calcutta, coupled with the nationwide applicability of the challenged notification, established sufficient grounds for the Calcutta High Court to presume jurisdiction. Consequently, the preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction were dismissed, allowing the case to proceed on its merits.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court referenced a multitude of precedents to delineate the contours of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1). Notable among these were:

• Industrial Fuel Marketing Co. v. Union of India (AIR 1983 Cal 253): Affirmed that the presence of the concerned officer within the court's jurisdiction establishes jurisdiction.
• Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711: Emphasized that if part of the cause of action arises within the court's territory, jurisdiction may be claimed.
• State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties (1985) 3 SCC 217: Held that mere service of notice within jurisdiction doesn't suffice unless integral to the cause of action.
• Damomal Kausomal Raisinghant v. Union of India (AIR 1967 Bom 355): Highlighted that orders affecting the petitioner within the jurisdiction can establish cause of action.
• Gurinder Jit Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (1998) 1 CLJ 98: Determined that the processing of a complaint within jurisdiction contributes to the cause of action.

These cases collectively informed the Court's understanding that territorial jurisdiction hinges not merely on the location of respondents but also on where the petitioner is affected by the contested orders.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court embarked on a systematic analysis of Article 226(1), laying down several propositions to ascertain jurisdiction:

• If all respondents reside within the court's jurisdiction, the writ application is valid.
• If only some respondents are within jurisdiction, and they are directly involved with the relief sought, the court may still claim jurisdiction.
• Even if no respondents are within jurisdiction, if the cause of action partly arises within, the court can entertain the petition under Article 226(2).
• Distinctions were made based on whether the impugned action affects the petitioner personally or has broader implications.

Applying these principles, the Court noted that the impugned notification was a central statute with nationwide applicability. Since the petitioners' business operations and grievances were anchored in Calcutta, the causal link established the necessary jurisdictional nexus. The lack of delegation of power to local officers further reinforced that the principal respondent was outside Calcutta, thereby necessitating reliance on Article 226(2) where the cause of action's partial genesis within Calcutta empowered the High Court to proceed.

3.3 Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for the interpretation of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226. It clarifies that High Courts can claim jurisdiction not solely based on the location of respondents but also based on where the petitioner experiences the effects of the impugned actions. This broadens access to justice for petitioners operating outside the principal respondent's location, ensuring that central or nationwide regulations can be challenged in any jurisdiction where their impact is felt.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue certain writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. It is a potent tool ensuring judicial oversight over executive actions.

4.2 Territorial Jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear a case based on geographic boundaries. In this context, it determines whether the Calcutta High Court has the authority to adjudicate a dispute involving parties or actions outside its immediate geographic area.

4.3 Cause of Action

The cause of action refers to the set of facts sufficient to justify a legal claim. For jurisdictional purposes, it identifies where the substantive dispute originates or where the petitioner is impacted.

5. Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court's decision in Raichand & Co. v. Director General Of Foreign Trade significantly refines the understanding of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226. By establishing that a writ petition can be entertained based on where the petitioner is adversely affected, irrespective of the respondent's location, the judgment enhances the accessibility of judicial remedies across different jurisdictions. This fosters a more inclusive legal environment where businesses and individuals can seek redressal in courts that are geographically relevant to their operations, thereby reinforcing the constitutional mandate of ensuring justice is both accessible and effective.