IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT APPEAL NO : 113 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/02/2008 in WP NO : 3369 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M/s. United Shippers Limited, United India Buildings, 2nd floor, Sir PM Road, Fort Mumbai - 400 001. Rep. by its Authorised signatory, Mr.R.Pandu S/o. Mr.R.Lingaiah, aged about 56 years, Resident of Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Volta Impex Private Limited, having its Registered Office at Plot No. 123/3RT, 1st floor, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad -38 rep. by its Senior Manager (Finance), Shri KV Rao. 2 Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, Jeevan Prakash, Kasturiba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. 3 Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, Jawahar Vyapar Bhavan, No.1 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. 4 Aluminium Industries Limited, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, No.1 Ceramic Factory Road, Kundara - 681 501, Kerala. 5 State Bank of Travancore, Poojapura, Trivandrum, Kerala, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 6 M/s. Alind Employees Union revival Committee, M/s. Alluminium Industries Ltd., rep. by its Secretary, No.1, Ceramic Factory Road, Kundara -681 501, Kerala. 7 M/s. Alind works Union, rep. byits Secretary, No.1 Ceramic Factory Road, Kundara-681 501, Kerala. 8 Alind Machinery Division Employees Union, regd. No.A-320, Serilingampally Post, Hyderabad 500 019 Rep. by its President Shri M.Bikshapathi S/o.Sri M.Sandaiah, aged about 58 years, Resident of Serilingampally, Hyderabad. 9 Shri Jagath Bahadur Rai S/o.Sri Jai Mau Singh Rai M/s. Alind Machinery Division Employees Union Serilingampally Post , Hyderabad. 10 Retired Employees Welfare Association, Regd. No. 2142, M/s. Alind Machinery Division, 64, Doyens Township, Serilingampally, Hyderabad-19, A.P. rep. by its President Shri U.Eliazer, S/o. late Shri Rev. U.Manikyam Aged about 63 Yrs. R/o. 64, Doyens Township, Serilingam pally, Hyd. (RR 8 to 10 impleaded by order dt. 28.8.2007) 11 Government of Kerala, Industries Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, rep. by its Principal Secretary to the Government (Respondent No.11 impleaded by order dt. 24.10.2007 in WPMP.No. 24908/2007 in W.P.No.3369 of 2007) 12 East Coast Metals and Minerals Private Limited Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, having its office at "Sree Nilayam" 7-1-32/A/9/1, Leela Nagar, Ameetpet, Hyderabad- 16. (Respondent No.12 impleaded by order dt. 18.1.08 in WPMP.No. 33426/2007 in W.P.No.3369 of 2007) .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.S.RAVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.V.PRABHAKARA RAO The Court made the following : Per Shri Anil R. Dave, CJ Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3369 of 2007, this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed. The impugned interim order has been reproduced hereinbelow: “Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner with regard to the objection raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition, I do not find any substance in the contention of the respondents that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. Hence, while reserving the reasons to be elaborated in the final order of the writ petition, the respondents are called upon to make their submissions on merits. As requested by the learned counsel for the respondents, post on 8-2-2008 at 2.15 P.M. as part-heard.” The short question, which has been involved in this appeal, is: “Whether it was obligatory on the part of the learned Single Judge to decide the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction as preliminary issue and to assign the reasons for arriving at a final decision on the said issue before hearing the writ petition on merits?” The learned Single Judge, by virtue of the impugned order observed that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, but did not give the reasons for coming to the said conclusion. The learned Single Judge adjourned the hearing so as to hear the writ petition on merits by observing that the reasons for which the Court had come to the conclusion that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition would be elaborated in the final order, which might be passed in the writ petition. Learned senior advocate Shri Shantibhushan appearing for the appellant-original respondent No.5 has filed this appeal challenging the validity of the impugned order on the ground that it was not open to the learned Single Judge to hear the matter on merits before deciding the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction and giving reasons for arriving at the final decision. It has been submitted by the learned senior advocate that according to the provisions of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the learned Single Judge should have pronounced the order by giving reasons on the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction first. Instead, the learned Single Judge committed an error by hearing the writ petition on the issue of jurisdiction at the first instance, gave decision on the issue without recording reasons and thereafter adjourned hearing so as to hear the same on merits. It has been submitted by him that before the learned Single Judge, order passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (AAIFR) – original respondent No.1 was challenged. AAIFR had given certain directions with regard to change of management and for framing a rehabilitation scheme to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (BIFR) – original respondent No.2 in relation to original respondent No.3 company. According to the learned senior advocate, both the authorities referred to hereinabove are not situated within the jurisdiction of this Court and even the company, namely, original respondent No.3 is also not having its registered office in Andhra Pradesh. The registered office of ALIND, original respondent No.3 is in Kerala. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned senior advocate has submitted that it was not open to the learned Single Judge to entertain the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It has been submitted by him that simply because some of the assets of respondent No.3 company are within the jurisdiction of this Court, it cannot be said that this Court has jurisdiction to hear a petition wherein order passed by respondent No.1, situated elsewhere, has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Thus, it has been submitted by him that as the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, the learned Judge should have rejected the petition. If the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that this Court had jurisdiction, the learned Judge ought to have given reasons for coming to the said conclusion. In fact, according to him, the learned Single Judge has taken a final decision with regard to territorial jurisdiction by observing that the Court did not find any substance in the contention that this Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, without assigning any reason. So as to substantiate his case, the learned senior advocate has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court – State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi[1], Navinchandra N. Mathitia v. State of Maharashtra[2], T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P.[3], Arun Agarwal v. Nagreeka Exports (P) Ltd.[4] and Alchemist Limited v. State Bank of Sikkim[5]. On the other hand, learned senior advocate Shri J.V. Suryanarayana appearing for respondent No.1 - original petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge was justified in deciding the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. According to him, the learned Single Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for the reason that cause of action had arisen within the State of Andhra Pradesh. It has been submitted by him that the question whether cause of action had arisen within the State of Andhra Pradesh is a question of fact. For the purpose of examining the said fact, it was necessary for the learned Single Judge to look at the merits of the case. Without looking to the facts of the case, according to the learned advocate, it was not possible for the learned Single Judge to decide whether this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. According to him, the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in adjourning the petition for hearing the same on merits so as to look at the facts of the case and then to come to the final conclusion in the writ petition. So as to substantiate his case, learned senior advocate Shri J.V. Suryanarayana has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India[6]. We have also heard learned advocate Shri C. Kodandaram appearing for respondent No.7, who has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava[7]. We have heard the learned advocates at length and have also considered the judgments cited by them. It is not in dispute that the preliminary issue with regard to maintainability of the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein has been answered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has specifically stated in the impugned order that the Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. It is also not in dispute that the learned Single Judge, while answering the preliminary issue, has not recorded reasons for coming to such a conclusion. In the case of State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (supra), which has been relied upon by the learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in para 30 of the judgment, has not approved the practice of High Courts of pronouncing the final conclusion without reasoned order. In the case on hand, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. After having come to the said conclusion, in our opinion, according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (supra), the learned Single Judge ought to have given the reasons for coming to the said conclusion. Instead of recording reasons for coming to the said conclusion, the learned Single Judge has observed that the reasons would be elaborated in the final order of the writ petition, which might be passed after hearing the learned advocates on merits. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are in agreement with the submissions made by learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant that the learned Single Judge ought to have given reasons for coming to the conclusion that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition instead of deciding to hear the matter on merits. The judgment delivered in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) cited by learned senior advocate Shri J.V. Suryanarayana appearing for the present respondent No.1 and original petitioner would not help him for the reason that the said judgment deals with the cause of action. It is true that the order can be challenged where even a part of cause of action has arisen. The said fact cannot be disputed. However, in the instant case, the question is whether the learned Single Judge was supposed to give the reasons for coming to the conclusion that this Court has territorial jurisdiction. Looking to the law laid down in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (supra), it is very clear that the learned Single Judge was supposed to give the reasons on the issue of territorial jurisdiction. We do not go into the legality of the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge on the issue of territorial jurisdiction at this juncture because that is not the issue before this Court. The decision taken by the learned Single Judge on the said issue was not followed by recording reasons. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion, the judgment delivered in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) would be of no help to the original petitioner. We do not discuss the other judgments cited by the learned advocates because we are not going into the merits on the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition. We may incidentally observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court even in the case of Union of India v. Ranbir Singh Rathaur[8] has held that preliminary objections should be decided at the first instance. As a matter of fact, even this appellate Court can decide the question with regard to jurisdiction, but certain relevant facts with regard to giving jurisdiction to this Court have not been argued at length before this Court. We do not intend to take the said course because, in that event, the parties to the litigation might lose a chance of filing an appeal, as the decision with regard to jurisdiction taken by this Court would be final so far as this High Court is concerned. We, therefore, do not make any observation on the subject of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The learned Single Judge shall give the reasons for coming to the conclusion that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and then only hear the petition on merits. No order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ February 29, 2008 GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, J svs [1] (1984) 1 SCC 596 [2] (2000) 7 SCC 640 [3] (2001) 1 SCC 516 [4] (2002) 10 SCC 101 [5] JT 2007 (4) SC 474 [6] (2004) 6 SCC 254 [7] 2006 SCC (L & S) 521 [8] (2006) 11 SCC 696