Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition on Territorial Jurisdiction Grounds in Dispute Over Advance Authorisation for Petroleum Coke Imports

Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an Advance Authorisation application for the import of Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) and the supply of Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought relief against the decision of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and questioned the applicability of a DGFT notification restricting such exports.

The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.

The petition was filed by Rain CII Carbon Vizag Ltd. and another party, seeking to quash the rejection letter dated February 5, 2025, and a deficiency letter dated January 15, 2025, issued by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade. The petitioners also requested directions to grant Advance Authorisation for RPC imports intended for CPC supply to SEZ units and sought to challenge DGFT Notification No. 68/2023 dated March 7, 2024.

Also Read: No Rigid Rule That Convict Should Undergo Half Of Sentence For Bail At Appellate Stage, Says Supreme Court

The petitioners submitted that their application for Advance Authorisation, dated December 31, 2024, was rejected based on revised policy conditions under the DGFT notification. It was contended that the Supreme Court's order dated October 10, 2023, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India permitted such supply under environmental regulations set by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM). Reference was made to the CAQM order dated February 15, 2024, and the subsequent amendments to the Import Policy by the DGFT.

The Union of India, represented by counsel Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, objected to the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. It was submitted that while the DGFT headquarters is in Delhi, the rejection letter was issued by the Regional Authority in Hyderabad, where the petitioners’ registered office is also located. The respondents contended that “apart from the fact that clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution does possibly confer jurisdiction on more than one High Court, but the doctrine of forum conveniens also has to be applied to all such cases where there may arise a doubt regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court or other High Courts.”

Senior Advocate P. Chidambaram, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that “there is neither a bar nor a prohibition for the High Court where the seat of authority is located to entertain any writ petition, if even a small part of cause of action has arisen.” It was contended that “a part of cause of action, and in his submission, material cause of action has arisen in the territory of Delhi.” It was argued that the rejection letter “though has been given a colour of having been issued from the Hyderabad office, was signed by the ADGFT sitting at Delhi.” Reference was made to Article 226(2) of the Constitution.

The court examined the application of the doctrine of forum conveniens and observed that “the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.”

The court recorded that “all the relevant, material and core issues have arisen at Hyderabad and in fact, no cause of action has at all arisen in Delhi.” It was noted that “the petitioner itself is located in Hyderabad; its Unit at Scindia Road, Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam in the State of Andhra Pradesh; the delivery of CPC to the concerned SEZ Unit is at Jharsuguda, in the State of Orissa.” It was further observed that “the impugned rejection letter has been issued by the concerned Regional Authority exercising jurisdiction over the concerned geographical area within which petitioner’s office is located.”

The court stated: “the fact that the rejection letter was signed by the Additional DGFT while stationed in Delhi does not create a sufficient territorial nexus. The substantive impact of the rejection is on the petitioner’s operations in Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam, with direct consequences in Odisha. Thus, the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is not engaged.”

Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254, wherein it was held that “a writ petition, however, questioning the constitutionality of a parliamentary Act shall not be maintainable in the High Court of Delhi only because the seat of the Union of India is in Delhi.” The Full Bench decision in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (2011) was also cited, which held that “the principle of forum conveniens in its ambit and sweep encapsulates the concept that a cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the court would not itself constitute to be the determining factor compelling the court to entertain the matter.”

Also Read: Jammu and Kashmir High Court Directs Toll Fee Reduction, Bars New Toll Plazas Within 60 km, and Orders Review of Hefty Charges

The court also rejected the submission that jurisdiction should be inferred based on a previous writ petition filed in Delhi, stating that “merely because the respondents earlier had not objected to the jurisdiction and this Court had entertained the previous writ petition, would not by itself bar the objections being raised now or being considered by this Court.” It was reiterated that “there is no estoppel against law.”

The court concluded that “this Court would not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition nor would it be the ‘forum conveniens’ to decide the lis.” The petition was dismissed on this ground, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate High Court.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate assisted by Syed Jafar Alam, Ankita Amarnath Kamath, and Shivraj Berry, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Central Government Standing Counsel, along with Advocates Hussain Taqui, Amlaan Kumar, and Vinayak Arun for the Union of India.

Cause Title: Rain II Carbon Vizag Ltd. & Anr Vs UOI Through The Secretary, Department of Commerce & Ors