Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1817 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - territorial jurisdiction - Murder - petitioner had been accused of killing 5 persons at Village Cher, Baikunthpur District, Chhattisgarh - petitioner/ non-applicant contends that this court is vested with jurisdiction concurrent to that of the High Court of Chhattisgarh - concept and place of 'cause of action'. Nature of the power exercised by the President while deciding clemency of any convict - concept of cause of action - HELD THAT:- No doubt the protection of personal life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount in any civilized society. All the limbs of the State must act to protect the same from any infraction. The concept of cause of action was inserted as Article 226 (1A) by the 15th Amendment and later renumbered as Article 226 (2) by the 42nd Amendment. The said concept was comprehensively discussed in Alchemist Ltd. [2007 (3) TMI 382 - SUPREME COURT]. Further the Full Bench of this Court in M/S. STERLING AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS., JAN CHETNA … VERSUS MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS & ORS., MANU JAIN VERSUS SMT. NEERJA SHAH & ORS., M/S BAFNA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. & ORS. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI-IV & ORS., THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX & ANR. VERSUS M/S. RICOH INDIA LTD. & ORS. [2012 (6) TMI 76 - DELHI HIGH COURT - LB] had concluded that "[e]ven if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this court, a writ petition would be maintainable before this court." At the same time, the full court had cautioned that the term “cause of action‟ should be understood as per Alchemist Ltd. As to what amounts to “cause of action‟ is well-settled, simply put, it is the bundle of facts which the plaintiff must prove in order to succeed - For every action, there has to be a cause of action. If there is no cause of action, the plaint or petition has to be dismissed. Whether cause of action can be said to have arisen in Delhi? - HELD THAT:- The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is twofold; first, that cause of action is linked with crime and second, that rejection of mercy petition does not give rise to any cause of action. We are unable to accept both the contentions of the applicant - The concept of cause of action in respect of criminal proceedings cannot apply sensu stricto to the present proceedings as the same are not a continuation of the judicial proceedings but premised upon executive orders. Learned counsel for the applicant had next contended that the rejection of mercy petition does not give rise to any cause of action. As an alternative, Mr. Jha had submitted it is the communication to the convict which may give rise to a cause of action. Again, we are unable to agree with the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. The mercy petition is the last thread between the convict and the gallows; the rejection of which leads to issuance of warrants of execution. It cannot be said that the same does not give rise to any cause of action to the convict as it closes the last hope upon which his very life is reliant. Therefore, in our view, the rejection of mercy petition does give rise to a cause of action at Delhi. Principle of forum non conveniens - applicant has argued that the convenient forum would be Chhattisgarh High Court and not this court - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the courts should generally decide disputes upon which they have jurisdiction. They may decline to exercise such jurisdiction only if there are compelling reasons for not doing so. In doing so, the courts must apply a balancing test and reject to exercise jurisdiction only if there are compelling reasons keeping the Latin maxim Judex tenetur impertiri judicium suum in mind - In the present case, the learned counsel for the applicant has resisted the jurisdiction of this court stating that the records of the supervening circumstances are maintained in Chhattisgarh and that the convict is also in Chhattisgarh. On the contrary the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the material which is to be looked into is in the possession of the respondent no. 1, the seat of which is also in Delhi. The material to be examined is the advice tendered by the cabinet and all the documents and records pertaining to the same are in Delhi and the decision has also been taken in Delhi. Further the location of the convict also makes no difference, as the convict being the dominus litis is free to invoke the jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, the said contention of the applicant must also be rejected. This Court is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition - Application dismissed.
|