HC can decline to exercise jurisdiction if previously on similar matters he approached some other HC

Indore Mahavidyalaya versus National Council for Teachers Education(Delhi HC)- While the learned Single Judge noticed that the office of the respondent falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, yet he declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that on three previous occasions  – including when the grievance arose  vis-à-vis  a previous order of the Appellate Committee, the writ petitioner approached the most convenient forum, i.e. the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was not appropriate to entertain this writ petition in Delhi.  Apart from the fact that the exercise of jurisdiction in such cases is not compulsive, discretion is also exercised having regard to the fact-circumstance in each case. In the present case, the learned Single Judge clearly adopted the forum inconvenien approach in declining to exercise jurisdiction (Ref.  Kusum Ingots & Alloys v.Union of India 2004 (6) SCC 254).

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI

Date of decision: 06.06.2011

LPA 538/2011

INDORE MAHAVIDYALAYA ….. Appellant

Through : Sh. V.V. Gautam, Ms. Ranchi Daga and Sh. Prabhod  Shukla, Advocates.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION ….. Respondents

Through : Sh. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?   Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?  Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?   Yes

MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)

LPA 538/2011 & C.M. APPL. 11529/2011(for exemption)

1. The present appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge dated  25.05.2011. The writ petitioner had challenged an order of the Appellate Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), which had upheld the recommendation of the Western Regional Committee, for withdrawal of recognition of the petitioner institute.

2. Learned Single Judge noticed that the genesis of the litigation was from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), i.e. W.P. 6146/2008 before the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court where the controversy was with regard to alleged violation of provisions of law by the institutes/colleges granted recognition, and violation under the  National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. That writ petition was disposed of. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with some notice on 28.12.2009 under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, which was impugned before the same High Court in W.P. 1052/2010. A Bench of the High Court disposed of that petition on 03.02.2010, granting opportunity to the petitioner to file reply and contest the Show Cause Notice on merits. The NCTE proceeded to pass a speaking order on 26.02.2010, directing withdrawal of recognition, earlier granted to the petitioner. The petitioner impugned the order before the Appellate Committee, which dismissed the appeal on 27.08.2010, remitting the matter to the Regional Committee, for fresh consideration. That order was also challenged by the Appellant before the Madhya Pradesh High Court through W.P. 11344/2010. The High Court, on 26.10.2010 set-aside the Appellate Committee’s order, remitting the matter, and directed the NCTE to consider the appeal afresh. The petitioner preferred a third Writ Petition being 11527/2010 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, for directions, which too was again in respect of an appeal which was disposed of by the High Court with certain directions to continue to display the petitioner’s name in the list of recognized institutes. Eventually, the Appellate Committee, by its order dated 13.12.2010, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, which was said to be challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. 3563/2011, filed on 19.05.2011. After noticing the conspectus of facts narrated above, learned Single Judge declined to exercise jurisdiction, stating as follows:

“XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX

8.  Undeniably, the office of the respondent is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court and also the fact that the writ petition against the order of appeal  passed by the respondent can be  entertained by this Court, yet considering the fact that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was seized with the entire subject matter and time and again  various directions were given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court including when even a challenge was made by the petitioner against the order passed by the same Appeal Committee, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to decline exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in the present matter and relegate the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

XXXXXX   XXXXXX   XXXXXX”

3. Learned counsel urged that the approach of the learned Single Judge was incorrect and that this Court should have entertained the writ petition since the Appellate Committee’s order squarely falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and that the NCTE and the institutions set-up under it, including the Appellate Committee, being statutory, are Tribunals, which fall within the judicial review control of this Court, to attract Article 226 jurisdiction.

4. It was also submitted that the records of the Appellate Committee are in Delhi and since the office of the NCTE is also located at New Delhi, the Court would be within its rights to entertain and grant appropriate relief. Learned counsel also urged to make submissions on the petition.

5. We have carefully considered the averments. While the learned Single Judge noticed that the office of the respondent falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, yet he declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that on three previous occasions  – including when the grievance arose  vis-à-vis  a previous order of the Appellate Committee, the writ petitioner approached the most convenient forum, i.e. the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was not appropriate to entertain this writ petition in Delhi.

6. We agree with the learned Single Judge’s approach. Apart from the fact that the exercise of jurisdiction in such cases is not compulsive, discretion is also exercised having regard to the fact-circumstance in each case. In the present case, the learned Single Judge clearly adopted the forum inconvenien approach in declining to exercise jurisdiction (Ref.  Kusum Ingots & Alloys v.Union of India 2004 (6) SCC 254).

7. We do not find any infirmity with that approach. The appeal is unmerited. The appeal and pending application are accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT

(VACATION JUDGE)

RAJIV SHAKDHER

(VACATION JUDGE)

JUNE 06, 2011

Related posts:

1. When Commissioner as Revisional Authority under section 263 seeks to exercise his jurisdiction on matters which did not form subject of order of reassessment, period of limitation would begin to run from original order of assessment
2. Service tax – Exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 84(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 when appeal had been preferred not permissible
3. CLB cannot exercise its inherent powers to pass orders without jurisdiction
4. Section 14A law laid down in Minda Investments cannot be followed as in the later decisions similar matters have been restored to the file of the AO
5. Jurisdiction of HC over a case whose cause of action arose from an order delivered by an appellate authority which is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court