TMI Blog1960 (12) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner will be referred to as the appellant in the course of this judgment. He was aged 45 years 262 days on August 12, 1954. He was holding a regular commission in the Jammu and Kashmir State Forces, which were amalgamated with the Defence Forces of the Union with effect from September 1, 1949. The appellant holding the substantive rank of Lieut. Col. in the amalgamated forces had the right to continue in service until he attained the age of 53 years, which event will happen on November 20, 1961. The Government of India issued a letter dated July 31, 1954, retiring the appellant from the service with effect from August 12, 1954, This decision of the Government of India is not based on any allegations or charge of inefficiency, indiscipline or any other irregularity on the part of the appellant. The aforesaid decision of the Government of India prematurely retiring the appellant is impugned as illegal, unwarranted and discriminatory and as having been made in contravention of Art. 16(1) of the Constitution. The petition was opposed on behalf of the respondents aforesaid on a number of preliminary grounds of which it is only necessary to mention the first, namely, that the aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to authority in the case of Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao ([1953] S.C.R. 1144.) applied with equal force to Government, inincluding the Union Government. The Government of India functions through its officers and, therefore, the location contemplated means the place at which the orders impugned are ordinarily passed. The considerations in a suit with reference to the cause of action for the suit do not stand on the same footing in a writ matter, because the writ has to reach the particular officers of the Government concerned. The expression in appropriate cases means that there may be cases where though the Union Government as such is not located within the territorial limits of a High Court yet a writ may be issued against it by the High Courts because an officer of the Union Government is functioning within such limits and it is his order which is the subject matter of the controversy. Therefore, it is not in every case that a High Court can issue a writ against the Union. A writ of mandamus, for example, is directed against a particular named person or authority. Similarly, a writ of certiorari is directed against a particular record. Therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'within the territories' in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction . The Constitution Bench in that case considered that the language of Art. 226 of the Constitution was reasoriably plain and that the exercise of the power conferred by that Article was subject to a two-fold limitation, namely, (1) that the power is to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction and (2) that the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue the writs must be within those territories . In other words, the writ of the Court could not run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction and that the person or authority affected by the writ must be amenable to the Court's jurisdiction, either by residence or location within those territories. The second case of this Court, which dealt with this question is K. S. Rashid and Son v. The Income-Tax Investigation Commission ([1954] S.C.R. 738.). That was a case on appeal from the judgment and order dated August 10, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature, Punjab, at Simla, in a number of miscellaneous matters, in which the High Court had been moved under Arts. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Union Government functioned throughout the territory of India and could not be said to be located only in Delhi simply because the capital for the time being was in Delhi. In this connection, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Maqbulunnissa v. Union of India (I.L. R. (1953) 2 All. 289.). That case does lend a great deal of support to this contention on behalf of the appellant. It was held by the High Court in that case that the words any Government in Art. 226(1) of the Constitution clearly indicated that the Allahabad High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Art. 226, not only against the State of Uttar Pradesh, but also against the Union Government for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Government to forbear from giving effect to the order asking the petitioner to leave India. The ratio of the decision was that, even though the capital of the Government of India is in Delhi, its executive power extends throughout the territory of India and that the real test to determine the jurisdiction would be the residence of the petitioners and the effect of the impugned order upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Art. 226 cannot and does not include Government. We are not impressed by this argument. In interpreting the word authority we must have regard to the clause immediately following it. Art. 226 provides for the issue to any person or authority including in appropriate cases any Government within those territories. It is clear that the clause including in appropriate cases any Government goes with the preceding word authority , and on a plain and reasonable construction it means that the word authority in the context may include any Government in an appropriate case. The suggestion that the said clause is intended to confer discretion on the High Courts in the matter of issuing a writ or direction on any Government seems to us clearly unsustainable. To connect this clause with the issuance of a writ or order and to suggest that in dealing with cases against Government the High Court has to decide whether the case is appropriate for the issue of the order is plainly not justified by the rules of grammar. We have no hesitation in holding that the said clause goes with the word authority and that its effect is that the authority against whom jurisdiction is conferred on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within those territories only if he resides therein- either permanently or temporarily. So far as an authority is concerned, there can be no doubt that if its office is located therein it must be within the territory. But do these words mean with respect to an authority that even though its office is not located within those territories it will be within those territories because its order may affect persons living in those territories? Now it is clear that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Art. 226 does not depend upon the residence or location of the person applying to it for relief; it depends only on the person or authority against whom a writ is sought being within those territories. It seems to us therefore that it is not permissible to read in Art. 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court. That jurisdiction depends on the person or authority passing the order being within those territories and the residence: or location of the person affected can have no relevance on the question of the High Court's jurisdiction. Thus if a person residing or located in Bombay, for examp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tories . By introducting the concept of functioning in these words we shall be creating the same conflict which would arise if the concept of the place where- the order is to have effect is introduced in Art. 226. There can, therefore, be no escape from the conclusion that these words in Art. 226 refer not to the place where the Government may be functioning but only to the place where the person or authority is either resident or is located. So far therefore as a natural person is concerned, he is within those territories if he resides there permanently or temporarily. So far. as an authority (other than a Government) is concerned, it is within the territories if its office is located there. So far as a Government is concerned it is within the territories only if its seat is within those territories. The seat of a Government is sometimes mentioned in the Constitutions of various countries but many a time the seat is not so mentioned. But whether the seat of a Government is mentioned in the Constitution or not, there is undoubtedly a seat from which the Government as 'such functions as a fact. What Art. 226 requires is residence or location as a fact and if therefore there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would have the same jurisdiction as the Justices of the Court of King's Bench Division in England for the territories which then were or thereafter might be subject to or depend upon the Government of Madras. It will therefore not be correct to put too much stress on the decision in that case. The question whether the concept of cause of action could be introduced in Art. 226 was also considered in Saka Venkata Subba Rao's case ([1953] S.C.R. 1144) and was repelled in these words:- The rule that cause of action attracts jurisdiction in suits is based on statutory enactment and cannot apply to writs issuable under Art. 226 which makes no reference to any cause of action or where it arises but insists on the presence of the person or authority within the territories' in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. Article 226 as it stands does not refer anywhere to the accrual of cause of action and to the jurisdiction of the High Court depending on the place where the cause of action accrues being within its territorial jurisdiction. Proceedings under Art. 226 are not suits; they provide for extraordinary remedies by a special procedure and give powers o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etation given in these two cases and indeed from any interpretation given in an earlier judgment of this Court, unless there is a fair amount of unanimity that the earlier decisions are manifestly wrong. This Court should not, except when it is demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that its previous ruling, given after due deliberation and full hearing, was erroneous, go back upon its previous ruling, particularly on a constitutional issue. In this case our reconsideration of the matter has confirmed the view that there is no place for the introduction of the concept of the place where the impugned order has effect or of the concept of functioning of a Government, apart from the location of its office concerned with the case, or even of the concept of the place where the cause of action arises in Art. 226 and that the language of that Article is plain enough to lead to the conclusion at which the two cases of this Court referred to above arrived. 'If any inconvenience is felt on account of this interpretation of Art. 226 the remedy seems to be a constitutional amendment. There is no scope for avoiding the inconvenience by an interpretation which we cannot reasonably, on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e territories in rotation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government within these territories, directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part. The operative part of this clause is in pari materia with Art. 226 of the Constitution with the difference that the words for any other purpose found in the latter Article are omitted in the former. Though the power of the High Court of Jammu Kashmir is limited to that extent, in other respects it is as extensive as that of the other High Courts under Art. 226. The object of the amendment is self- evident; it was enacted to enable the said High Court to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens of India in that part of the country. The learned Solicitor-General broadly contends that this Court has construed the analogous provisons of Art. 226 of the Constitution and held that the writs under that Article do not run beyond the territories in relation to which a High Court exercises jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appropriate High Court to protect his rights against any person, authority or any Government if his fundamental right or any other right is infringed by the said person, authority or Government. If the contention of the respondents be accepted, whenever the Union Government infringes the right of a person in any remote part of the country., he must come all the way to New- Delhi to enforce his right by filing a writ petition in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court. If a common man residing in Kanyakumari, the southern-most part of India, his illegally detained in prison, or deprived of his property otherwise than by law, by an order of the Union Government, it would be a travesty of fundamental rights to expect him to come to New Delhi to seek the protection of the High Court of Punjab. This construction of the provisions of Art. 226 would attribute to the framers of the Constitution an intention to confer the right on a person and to withhold from him for all practical purposes the remedy to enforce his right against the Union Government. Obviously it could not have been the intention of the Constituent Assembly to bring about such an anomalous result in respect of what t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the parties to that litigation were not subject to the original jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The Judicial Committee held that the Madras High Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to run beyond the territorial limits of that High Court. When it was contended that, as the Revenue Board was in Madras, the High Court had jurisdiction to quash its order, the Judicial Committee repelled that contention with the follow- ing remarks at p. 164: The Board of Revenue has always had its offices in the Presidency Town, and in the present case the Collective Board, which made the order complained of, issued this order in the town. On the other hand, the parties are not subject to the original jurisdiction of the High Court, and the estate of Parlakimedi ties in the north of the province............. Their Lordships think that the question of jurisdiction must be regarded as one of substance, and that it would not have been within the competence of the Supreme Court to claim jurisdiction over such a matter as the present by issuing certiorari to the Board of Revenue on the strength of its location in the town. Such a view would give jurisdiction to the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the State, they could have stated or the Government of the State , instead they designedly used the words any Government which at first sight appear rather involved but on a deeper scrutiny reveal that the words any Government cannot mean only the Government of the State. The word any clearly presupposes the existence of more than one Government functioning in a State. Under the Constitution two Governments function in each State. Under Art. 1, India shall be a Union of States and the territory of India shall comprise, inter alia, the territories of the States. Part 11 provides for one class of citizens, that is, citizens of India. In whatever State a person with the requisite qualifications of a citizen may reside, he is a citizen of India and not of that particular State. All the three departments of the Union as well as the State function in the State; both Parliament and the Legislature of the State make laws which govern the State in respect of matters allotted to them respectively. Both the Union and the State executive powers extend to the. State, and the former is exercised in regard to matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws and the latter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our from the context in which they are used. A person may be said to be within a territory if he resides therein. He may also be within a territory if he temporarily enters the said territory or is in the course of passing through the territory. Any authority may be in a territory if its office is located therein. It may also be said to be within a territory if it exercises its powers therein and if it can make orders to bind persons for properties therein. So too a Government may be within a State if it has a legal situs in that State. It may also be said to be within a State if it administers the State, though for convenience some of its executive authorities are residing outside the territory. We must give such meaning to these words as would help the working of the Constitution rather than retard it. To put it differently, can it be said that the Union Government is within a particular State? Union Government in the present context means the executive branch of the Government. Where is it located? To answer this question it is necessary to consider what is Union Government . The Constitution in Part V under the heading. The Union deals with separate subjects, namely, the exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is present throughout the territories over which it exercises jurisdiction and in respect whereof it can make effective and binding orders in the field allotted to it by the Constitution. The constitutional situs of the Union Government is the entire territories of the Union and it is within the territories of India and,, therefore, within the territories of every State. Let us look at the problem from another standpoint. Under Art. 300 of the Constitution, the Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India. The word sued is used in a general sense and cannot be narrowly construed in the Constitution as to comprehend only action by way of filing a suit in a civil court. According to Webster, it means to seek justice or right by legal process. Generally speaking, it includes any action taken in a court. The practice followed in the various High Courts and the Supreme Court is also consistent with the wide meaning attributed to it, for writs are filed against the Government of India only in the name of the Union of India. Union of India is a juristic person and it is impossible to predicate its residence in a particular place in the Union. Its prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d his claim. A certiorari is directed to an authority requiring the record of the proceedings in some cause or matter to be transmitted into the High Court to be dealt with there. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. II, 3rd edition). It was asked how could the liberty of a subject be secured, the command be issued, the proceedings of an inquiry be prohibited, the credentials of a person to hold office be questioned, the records of a proceeding be directed to be transmitted to the High Court, if the authority concerned wag located, or the person directed resided, outside. the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court? It was also asked how, if the said authority, or person, disobeyed the order of the High Court, it could be enforced against the said authority or person. On the parity of the same reasoning the argument proceeded that, as the officers acting for the Government of India reside in Delhi, a writ which would become brutum fulmen could not be issued by the High Court. The questions so posed are based on a misapprehension of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. They also mix up the nature of the writs with the procedure in dealing with the writs or enfor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court could not, in an appropriate case, give a suitable direction to, or make a proper order on, the Union Government. Such directions or orders are certainly free from the procedural technicalities of the said writs. I shall now notice briefly the decisions cited at the Bar. The first is the decision of this Court in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao([1953] S.C.R. lI44.). There the Governor of Madras referred to the Election Commission, which had its offices permanently located in New Delhi, the question whether the respondent was disqualified and could be allowed to sit and vote in the Assembly. The respondent thereupon applied to the High Court of Madras under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ restraining the Election Commission from enquiring into his alleged disqualification for membership of the Assembly. This Court held that the power of the High Court to issue writs under Art. 226 of the Constitution was subject to the two-fold limitation: (i) that such writs cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction; and (ii) that the person or authority to whom the High, Court is empowered to issue writs must be amenable to the jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed before us. The importance of the decision lies in the fact that the learned Judges approached the problem without being oppressed by the decision of this Court in Saka Venkata Rao's case ([1953] S.C.R. 1144. ), which was decided only subsequent to that decision. After considering the relevant Articles of the Constitution' Sapru, J., speaking for the Full Bench, observed at pp. 293-294 thus: The analogy between a government and a corporation or a joint stock company which has its domicile in the place where its head office is situate is misleading. To hold that the jurisdiction of this Court does not extend to the Union Government as it has its capital at Delhi and must be deemed to have its domicile at Delhi would be to place the Union Government not only in respect of the rights conceded in Part III but for any other purpose also beyond the jurisdiction of all State High Courts except the Punjab High Court. The learned Judge proceeded to state at p. 294- In our opinion, the jurisdiction of this Court to intervene under Article 226 depends not upon where the Headquarters or the Capital of, the Government is situate but upon the fact of the effect of the act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherever its officers might have kept them. This second ground is really corollary to the first, viz., that the Union Government is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court concerned. The Bombay High Court in Radheshyam Makhanlal v. The Union of India () A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 353.) also held that a writ cannot issue against the Union Government whose office is located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. Shah, J., applying the principle of the decision in Saka Venkata Rao's case ([1953] S.C.R. 1144.) to the Union Government hold that as the office of the Union Government was not located within the State of Bombay, the Bombay High Court could not issue a writ to the Union Government. But S. T. Desai, J.,, was not willing to go so far, and he based his conclusion on a narrower ground, namely, that even if the writ was issued it could not be enforced. I have already pointed out that both the grounds are not tenable. The Union Government is within the State of Bombay in so far as it exercises its powers in that State and the High Court has got a constitutional power to issue writes to the Union Government and, therefore, their enforceability does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the Union Government which cannot easily by visualized or ordinarily be expected. (10) The difficulties in communicating the orders pertain to the rules of procedure and adequate and appropriate rules can be male for communicating the same to the Central Government or its officers. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that Art. 32(2A) of the Constitution enables the High Court of Jammu Kashmir to issue the writ to' the Union Government in respect of the act done by it infringing the fundamental rights of the parties in that State. In the result,, I allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and direct' it to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The appellant will have his costs. DAS GUPTA, J.-I have had the advantage of reading the judgments prepared by my Lord the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Subba Rao. I agree with the conclusions reached by the Chief Justice 'that the appeal should be dismissed. As, however, I have reached that conclusion by a slightly different process of reasoning I propose to indicate those reasons briefly. The facts have been fully stated in the judgment of My Lord the Chief Justice and it is not necessary t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this power is subject to the existence of the condition precedent that the person or the Government or the authority other than the Government must be within the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction . A special limitation in respect of the issue of writs or orders to a Government is introduced by the words in appropriate cases before the words any Government . Leaving for later consideration the effect of the words in appropriate cases we have first to examine the question: when is a Government within the territories under the jurisdiction of a particular High Court ? On behalf of the first respondent, the Union of India, it is urged that to be within the territories under the jurisdiction of a High Court the Government must be located within those territories. It is pointed out that any person ' to be within any specified territories has to be present within those territories; an authority other then Government has also, before it can be said to be within any particular territories, a physical existence within those territories by having its office therein. The same requirement of location within the particular territories, it is arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utta when he resides in Calcutta, it goes to Bombay when the President resides in Bombay and to Madras when the President goes and resides in Madras? This may seem at first sight a fantastic illustration; but when we remember that in fact in the days of British rule, the Viceroy had a permanent place of residence at Simla for part of the year and another permanent place of residence at Calcutta for part of the year before 1911 and after 1911 one permanent place of residence in Delhi and another in Simla, it is easy to see that what has been said above by way of illustration is by no means improbable. If therefore a Government is to be held to be located at the place where the head of the State- the President of India in the case of the Government of India and the Governor in the case of each State-resides, it may well become impossible to speak of any particular place as the place where the Government is located throughout the year. This may not affect the question of any State Government being within the territories of the High Court of the State. For whatever place the Governor may have for his residence is bound to be within the territories of the State. The position will howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... West Bengal and stays there for a considerable part of the year. Many of the offices of this Ministry are situated in Calcutta. What is true of this Ministry, may happen as regards other Ministries also. Special circumstances may require that some portion of the business of the Minis. try of Commerce be performed at places like Bombay, Calcutta or Madras in preference to Delhi, and if this happens the Minister to whom the business of Government of India in respect of commerce has been allocated will be transacting his business at these places instead of at Delhi. If public interest requires that the greater portion of the business of the Ministry of Defence should for reasons of security or other reasons be carried on at some place away from Delhi the Defence Minister will have to transact its business at that place. It is clear therefore that while at any particular point of time it may be possible to speak of any Ministry of the Government of India being located at a particular place, the Government of India as a whole may not necessarily be located at that place. In my opinion, it is therefore neither correct nor appropriate to speak of location of any Government. Nor is it pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eking relief against the Government of India will naturally choose the High Court which is most convenient to him and so the Government of India may have to face applications for relief as against the same order affecting a number of persons in all the different High Courts in India. If a position of such inconvenience to the Government of India' though of great convenience to the persons seeking relief, did in fact result from the words used by the Constitution-makers, I for one, would refuse to shrink from the proper interpretation of the words merely to help the Government. I do not however think that that result follows. For, on a proper reading of the words in appropriate cases , it seems to me that there will be, for every act or omission in respect of which relief can be claimed, only one High Court that can exercise jurisdiction. It has first to be noticed that the limitation introduced by the use of these words in appropriate cases' has not been placed in respect of issue of writs to persons and to authorities other than government. It has been suggested that the effect of these words is that in issuing writs against any Government the High Court has not got the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uits was considered by this Court in Saka Venkata Subba Rao's Case and the answer given was in the negative. Referring to the decision of the Privy Council in Parlakimedi's Case (((1943) L.R. 70 I.A. 129.)) this Court pointed out that the decision did not turn on the construction of a statutory provision similar in scope, purpose or wording to Art. 226 of the Constitution, and is not of much assistance in the construction of that article. Delivering the judgment of the Court Patanjali Sastri C. J. also observed:- The rule that cause of action attracts jurisdiction in suits is based on statutory enactment and cannot apply to writs issuable under Art. 226 which makes no reference to any cause of action or where it arises but insists on the presence of the person or authority 'within the territories' in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. This decision is binding on us, and I may respectfully add that I find no reason to doubt its correctness. It is true that in that case the Court had to consider the question of jurisdiction in respect of an authority other than Government. It is difficult to see however why if cause of action could not attract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
