Constitution of India: Art. 226 – Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court – Cause of Action/Part of cause of action – Concept of, u/Art. 226(2) – Notification issued by the State of Goa levying 14% tax on Lottery authorised by State Government – Challenged to, by the company selling lottery tickets which is being run by the State of Sikkim, in various States including Goa, in a writ petition before the High Court of Sikkim – Applications by the State of Goa before the High Court for deletion of its name from the array of respondent on the ground that notification under a statute enacted by the State legislature cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny within the jurisdiction of a High Court of a different state, more so, no cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of the High Court of Sikkim – High Court dismissed the application holding that at least a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court as the notification was issued under CGST Act as well IGST Act – On appeal, held: Party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the High Court to decide the dispute and that, at least, a part of the cause of action to move the High Court arose within its jurisdiction – Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted – Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court – These are the guiding tests – Assuming that a slender part of the cause of action did arise within the State of Sikkim, the concept of forum conveniens ought to have been considered by the High Court – Tax is levied by the Government of Goa in respect of carrying of any business in the territory of Goa – Merely having the office in the State of Sikkim does not form the integral part of the cause of action – No, adverse consequence of the impugned notification felt within the jurisdiction of the High Court – High Court erred in dismissing the applications – Order passed by the High Court set aside – Cause of action. National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Haribox Swalram (2004) 9 SCC 786 : [2004] 3 SCR 738; Kusum Ingots v. Union of India (2006) 4 SCC 254; Ambica Industries v. CCE (2007) 6 SCC 769 : [2007] 7 SCR 685 –
referred to.
Cooke v. Gill (1873) 8 CP 107 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.