9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 1460 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of the petition - Territorial jurisdiction - major penalty of reduction to the lowest level of Pay-scale - Principles of Forum Conveniens - requirements of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court in Ambica Industries 2007 (5) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT further held that the High Court would exercise its discretionary jurisdiction as also power to issue writ of certiorari in respect of the orders passed by the subordinate courts within its territorial jurisdiction or if any cause of action has arisen there within but the same tests cannot be applied when the appellate court exercises a jurisdiction over a tribunal situated in more than one State. In such a situation the High Court situated in the State where the first court is located should be considered to be the appropriate Appellate Authority. It was in this context that the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of dominus litis or doctrine of situs of the Appellate Tribunal do not go together. Dominus litis indicates that the suitor has more than one option whereas the situs of an Appellate Tribunal refers to only one High Court wherein the appeal can be preferred. The Supreme Court held that the situs of a tribunal may vary from time to time. It could be Delhi or some other place. Determination of the jurisdiction of a High Court on the touchstone of Sections 35-G and 35-H of the Act in our opinion should be considered only on the basis of statutory provisions and not anything else. Further it is in this context that the Supreme Court held that in view of the expression cause of action used in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India indisputably even if a small fraction thereof accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter though the doctrine of forum conveniens may also have to be considered. Learned Single Judges have thus erred in applying the doctrine of forum conveniens to the facts of the present case. In the instant case Petitioners have invoked Article 226(1) i.e. the concept of situs to file the Writ Petitions and further the cause of action has also arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Jabalpur since the impugned orders have also been issued from within its territory. The Petitioner therein was an Assistant Professor in the Agriculture College Gwalior run by the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Jabalpur and was aggrieved by his pay fixation. He had filed a petition in Gwalior and an objection was taken by the Respondents that the Bench at Gwalior would have no jurisdiction as the University was located at Jabalpur and the alleged wrong fixation of pay giving cause for filing the petition was made at Jabalpur. In the present case both the Petitions are maintainable before the Principal Bench as the situs of the authority is at Bhopal within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Jabalpur thus satisfying the requirement of Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India. Further in Writ Petition No.6010/2020 petitioner has impugned an order dated 03.02.2020 issued by the Upper Secretary Government of Madhya Pradesh Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Bhopal and in Writ Petition No.18824/2024 petitioner has impugned order dated 29.05.2024 issued by the Commissioner Health Services at Bhopal and the show-cause notice dated 25.06.2024 issued by the State Government at Bhopal. Since the action impugned has been taken by the respondents at Bhopal substantial cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Jabalpur. Clearly the requirements of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India are also satisfied. Clearly both the learned Single Judges have erred in dismissing the petitions on the ground of forum conveniens. The Writ Petitions are maintainable before the Principal Bench at Jabalpur. Consequently the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 in Writ Petition No.6010/2020 ( impugned in Writ Appeal No.2228/2023) and impugned order dated 24.07.2024 in Writ Petition No.18824/2024 (impugned in Writ Appeal No.1804/2024) are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. Thus the appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 18.10.2023 in Writ Petition No.6010/2020 and dated 24.07.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.18824/2024 applying the principles of forum conveniensand holding that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable before the Bench at Jabalpur and dismissing the same are set aside. The Writ Petitions are restored to their original number. Both the Writ Petitions are remitted to the learned single judges for reconsideration on merits. There shall be no orders as to costs.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court are: (i) Whether a Writ Petition is maintainable before the Bench within whose territorial jurisdiction the impugned order was issued, even if the order affects an employee posted outside that territorial jurisdiction; (ii) Whether a Writ Petition can be filed solely based on the seat of the authority issuing the impugned order, even if the cause of action or part thereof arises outside that territorial jurisdiction; (iii) Whether the principle of forum conveniens should be tested from the standpoint of the petitioner (dominus litis) or the State Government when entertaining a Writ Petition. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i) and (ii): Jurisdiction based on seat of authority versus cause of action Legal framework and precedents: Articles 226(1) and 226(2) of the Constitution of India provide the High Courts with jurisdiction to issue writs either based on the seat of the person, authority or government (Article 226(1)) or based on the cause of action arising wholly or partly within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court (Article 226(2)). The 15th Constitutional Amendment inserted clause (2) (now 226(2)) to introduce the concept of cause of action as a basis for jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India clarified that even a small fraction of cause of action arising within a High Court's jurisdiction attracts jurisdiction. However, it also emphasized that the petitioner has the choice of forum when concurrent jurisdiction exists. The Court further held that the situs of the office of the authority passing the order is relevant to jurisdiction under Article 226(1), and that framing of legislation or executive orders alone does not confer jurisdiction unless a cause of action arises. Other precedents such as Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties were cited to highlight that the question of territorial jurisdiction depends on the averments in the petition, and that service of notice is not a cause of action unless integral to the cause. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the impugned orders in the present cases were issued from authorities seated at Bhopal, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Jabalpur. Even though the affected employees were posted in areas under the Gwalior Bench, a substantial cause of action arose at Bhopal. The Court noted that the learned Single Judges erred in restricting jurisdiction solely based on the territorial posting of the employees and ignoring the situs of the authority issuing the orders. The Court emphasized that Article 226(1) confers jurisdiction based on the seat of the authority, while Article 226(2) confers jurisdiction based on cause of action. Both bases were satisfied here. Key evidence and findings: The impugned orders-the order treating petitioners as Shiksha Karmi and the penalty order with show-cause notice-were issued by authorities located at Bhopal. The petitioners were posted outside Bhopal, but the orders originated within the Principal Bench's jurisdiction. Application of law to facts: Since the orders emanated from Bhopal, the Principal Bench at Jabalpur had jurisdiction under Article 226(1). Additionally, a substantial cause of action arose at Bhopal, satisfying Article 226(2). Thus, the petitions were maintainable before the Principal Bench despite the petitioners' posting elsewhere. Treatment of competing arguments: The State argued that the petitions should be filed before the Gwalior Bench as the employees were posted there and the alleged misconduct occurred there. The Court rejected this, holding that the State cannot deny jurisdiction at its principal seat from where the impugned orders emanate. The Court also distinguished the present facts from cases where only a slender part of cause of action arises within a jurisdiction, such as Summit Online Trade Solutions. Conclusions: The Court concluded that Writ Petitions are maintainable before the Bench within whose territorial jurisdiction the impugned order was issued, even if the employee is posted outside that jurisdiction. Further, petitions can be filed based solely on the seat of the authority even if part of the cause of action arises outside that territory. Issue (iii): Application of the principle of forum conveniens Legal framework and precedents: The doctrine of forum conveniens allows a court with jurisdiction to decline to exercise it if there is a more appropriate forum elsewhere. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. recognized that even if jurisdiction exists, the Court may refuse to exercise it in favor of a more convenient forum. However, the principle must be tested from the standpoint of the petitioner, who is the dominus litis (master of the suit). Ambica Industries was relied upon by the learned Single Judges but was distinguished by the Court as it involved appellate jurisdiction under a statute with a single designated High Court, unlike concurrent jurisdiction under Article 226. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the learned Single Judges misapplied the doctrine of forum conveniens by prioritizing the convenience of the State Government and witnesses over the petitioner's choice of forum. Since the Principal Bench at Jabalpur had jurisdiction both on the seat of the authority and cause of action, the petitioner had the right to choose that forum. The Court emphasized that the State cannot claim inconvenience in defending a petition at its principal seat. The doctrine of forum conveniens cannot be invoked to oust jurisdiction when concurrent jurisdiction exists and the petitioner's choice is legitimate. Key evidence and findings: Both Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judges on forum conveniens grounds, directing petitioners to approach the Gwalior Bench, despite the petitions being filed before the Principal Bench where the impugned orders originated. Application of law to facts: The Court found that the principle of forum conveniens was incorrectly applied to deny jurisdiction to the Principal Bench. The petitioners' choice of forum was valid and the State's convenience could not override that choice. Treatment of competing arguments: The State's argument for convenience was rejected as it conflicted with the petitioner's right to select forum when concurrent jurisdiction exists. The Court distinguished cases where only one forum is appropriate, such as appeals under specific statutes. Conclusions: The principle of forum conveniens must be tested from the petitioner's standpoint. Where concurrent jurisdiction exists, the petitioner's choice of forum should be respected, and the State's convenience cannot be the basis to dismiss petitions. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court made the following crucial legal determinations: "A Writ Petition would be maintainable before the Bench within whose territorial jurisdiction the order impugned in the Writ Petition has been issued, even though the order affects an employee who is posted in territories outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said Bench." "A Writ Petition can be filed based solely on the seat of the authority even in cases where the cause of action or part thereof arises outside the territorial jurisdiction of the seat of the authority." "The principle of Forum Conveniens has to be tested from the stand point of the petitioner who is the dominus litis and not at the conveniences of the State Government." Further, the Court held: "If two High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction, Petitioner has the choice of forum. The State cannot take a plea of forum non conveniens particularly when the principal seat of the State from where the impugned orders are issued is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench." The Court set aside the impugned orders dismissing the Writ Petitions on forum conveniens grounds and restored the petitions for reconsideration on merits before the Principal Bench.
|
