Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 728 - HC - Indian LawsTerritorial Jurisdiction - part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court or not - Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- The place of residence or work of petitioner and/or respondent may not be much relevant in determining the jurisdictional aspect. The determinative fact is the place of accrual of cause of action or part of cause of action. This Court can issue directions against the respondents situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court provided part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Apex Court in case of Election Commission Vs. Venkat [1953 (2) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT] and subsequent judgments took a view that it was location or residence of the litigant which gave territorial jurisdiction to the High Court under Article 226. The situs of the cause of action being immaterial. It appears that, judgment of the Apex Court propelled, the parliament to amend Article 226 and insert clause 1A by the 15th Amendment 1967 and subsequently renumbered clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution by Constitution's (Forty Second) Amendment Act. The said amendment provided that the High Court within which the cause of action arise wholly or in part would also have jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Seeking employment with Municipal Council, Roha, Dist. Raigad on compassionate ground - HELD THAT:- The area of operation of Municipal Council, Roha is limited to Roha taluka. It does not extent beyond Roha taluka. Roha Taluka is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. No part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. As even small fraction of cause of action has not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court would not exercise its territorial jurisdiction. Seeking information under the Right to Information Act with respondent Nos. 4 and 5 - HELD THAT:- The office of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is situated at Pune. The appeal filed before the respondent No. 3 is allowed. The same is also situated at Pune. The petitioner seeks directions against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to provide for the information. In the said writ petition also no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petitions need not be entertained - The petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for the same cause of action before appropriate forum possessing territorial jurisdiction - writ petition disposed off.
|