The Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition on advance authorisation for raw pet coke imports to Special Economic Zones (SEZs), citing Forum Conveniens.
The bench of Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that the mere appending of his signature at a particular location would not, ipso facto, be the primordial consideration while examining the issue of “cause of action” or territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, for all intents and purpose, the Regional Authority had rejected the application seeking Advance Authorisation at Hyderabad, even though he was seated at Delhi.
“Even if a small part of the cause of action arises within a court’s jurisdiction, it is not a compelling factor to exercise jurisdiction if the doctrine of forum conveniens dictates otherwise,” the bench said.
The petitioner, Rain CII Carbon Vizag Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the rejection of their application for Advance Authorisation for importing Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC). The company intended to manufacture Calcined Pet Coke (CPC) and supply it to SEZ units like Vedanta in Jharsuguda, Odisha.
the petitioner had submitted applications for Advance Authorisation on 31.03.2024, 20.04.2024 and 03.08.2024 for export of Calcined Pet Coke (CPC) to Vedanta SEZ Units. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the fourth application dated 31.12.2024 seeking Advance Authorisation for manufacture and export of CPC to Vedanta SEZ Units. By the letter dated 05.02.2025, the DGFT rejected the application seeking Advance Authorisation ostensibly predicated on the revised policy condition 6(b)(iii) of the DGFT Notification no.68/2023 dated 07.03.2024.
The court noted that the Competent Authority while rejecting the application vide the impugned letter was acting as the Regional Authority exercising power, authority and jurisdiction over the geographical area within which the petitioner was located, i.e., at Hyderabad. As such, the authority conferred upon the Regional Authority was restricted to such geographical area and not beyond. It is not the case of the petitioner and admittedly so, that the Regional Authority was conferred power to exercise such authority pan India. Thus, the mere appending of his signature at a particular location would not, ipso facto, be the primordial consideration while examining the issue of “cause of action” or territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Details
Case Title: Rain CII Carbon Vizag Ltd & Anr Versus Union Of India
Case No.: W.P.(C) 2557/2025 & CM APPLs.12089-12090/2025
Date: 07.03.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Senior Advocate P. Chidambaram
Counsel For Respondent: Rukhmini Bobde
Read More: VACANCY | NFRA Invites Application For Filing Up The Post Of Chairperson And 3 Full Time Members
