TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f an enforceable right arises only on communication of the order, then, a cause of action arises and is complete only when the communication of the order to the person concerned is complete. Without such communication of an order to the concerned person, the cause of action is not complete for filing of a case in a court of law. This Court has no territorial jurisdiction and the writ petition is therefore dismissed - W.P.(C) No.10392/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2016 - Mr. Valmiki J.Mehta, J. Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Shekhar Gupta Advocate. For The Petitioner. Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, for respondent. JUDGMENT Valmiki J. Mehta, 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner questioning the termination of his contractual services with the respondent no.2/Goa Shipyard Ltd. as a Director (Corporate, Planning, Projects Business Development). The orders of termination of the contractual services in the present case are dated 27.10.2015 and 28.10.2015 and which letters read as under:- Letter dated 27.10.2015 Confidential No.2(10)/2009/GSL/D(SY) Govt. of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken. 5. The receipt of the letter be acknowledged immediately Sd/- RAdm Shekhar Mital, NM, IN (Retd) Chairman Managing Director Encl: a/a CONFIDENTIAL 2. The arguments have been heard in the writ petition with respect to the maintainability on the ground as to whether there exists or does not exist territorial jurisdiction of this Court to decide the writ petition. Petitioner argues that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction whereas the respondent no.2 argues that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction. On behalf of the petitioner, to argue that this Court has territorial jurisdiction, reliance was placed upon the letter dated 27.10.2015 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence from New Delhi and copy of which is marked to the petitioner. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that once the impugned order dated 27.10.2015 is issued at New Delhi, this Court would have territorial jurisdiction although the actual order of termination of services dated 28.10.2015 was served upon him by the respondent no.2 at Goa. 3. Reliance on behalf the petitioner is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place'. 23. The learned Single Judge has referred to the words used by the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots‟ case (supra) in paragraph 26 of the decision wherein it is observed by the Court that framing of statute, statutory rule or issue of an executive order or instruction would not confer jurisdiction upon a court only because of the situs of the office of the maker thereof. The learned Single Judge has therefore excluded the making of the executive order as a part of cause of action and hence the place thereof as where cause of action accrued. 24. The learned Single Judge has overlooked that the observations of the Supreme Court concerning the making of an executive order or instructions and the place where it is made have been referred to in the context of what would constitute law, evidenced by the fact that in the same paragraph the Supreme Court has observed 'In fact, a legislation, it is trite, is not confined to a statute enacted by Parliament or the legislature of a State, which would include delegated legislation and subordinate legislation or an ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k in the year 1963 in the judgment in the case of Bachhittar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395 has held that orders passed in Government files unless communicated would not give a legal right to a person. The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachhittar Singh (supra) has been consistently followed thereafter and it is the law of the land. One such recent judgment of the Supreme Court following the ratio of the judgment in the case of Bachhittar Singh (supra) is the case of Sethi Auto Service Station and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others (2009) 1 SCC 180 wherein the Supreme Court has held that unless and until an order is communicated to a person, without such communication the order does not culminate into an executable order and that the decision becomes the decision only when it is communicated to the concerned person. The relevant paras of the judgment in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station and Another (supra) are paras 14 to 17 and these paras read as under:- 14. It is trite to state that notings in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an officer is an expression of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uctified into an order conferring legal right upon the appellants. (underlining added) 6. A cause of action in law means that an enforceable right in law accrues. When a right accrues simultaneously a liability also arises against a person. If an enforceable right arises only on communication of the order, then, a cause of action arises and is complete only when the communication of the order to the person concerned is complete. Without such communication of an order to the concerned person, the cause of action is not complete for filing of a case in a court of law. In fact in the last line of para 15 of the judgment in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station and Another (supra) it is clearly observed by the Supreme Court that the decision in a file is only an opinion‟ and which becomes a decision‟ only when a communication is made. To clarify further, for example, can the Government contend that an order exists in its file which was not communicated to the concerned person and yet that person‟s services are terminated merely because such order of termination of services exists in the file? The answer is obviously in negative because unless a person knows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd/or liabilities or the order becomes a decision‟ from an opinion‟ only after communication thereof is complete. Thus a mere existence of an order in the Government file does not result in a binding order for creating legal rights, and therefore, when legal rights are created only on communication and a legal cause of action is complete only on such communication, thus accordingly it is the place where the order of termination of services is communicated that would be the place where the territorial jurisdiction arises, and which is Goa in the facts of the present case. 8. Finally, I may note that learned counsel for the petitioner sought to take some help from the Full Bench judgment of five Judges of this Court in the case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. etc. etc. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. etc. etc. decided on 1.8.2011, however, it is seen that in the said case there was no issue which was decided as regards the territorial jurisdiction when there is an order of termination of services of an employee. In the case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. etc. etc.(supra), the issue of territorial jurisdiction arose with respect to passing of an order by the Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tual matrix of each case in view of what has been stated in Ambica Industries (supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. (supra) (g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) that since the original order merges into the appellate order, the place where the appellate authority is located is also forum conveniens is not correct. (h) Any decision of this Court contrary to the conclusions enumerated hereinabove stands overruled. 9. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. etc. etc. (supra) will have no application and will not help the petitioner for holding that this Court has territorial jurisdiction. Even as per the case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. etc. etc. (supra) at least a part of cause of action has to arise in Delhi for this Court to have territorial jurisdiction to file a case, and no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi in the present case because simply existence of an order in the file of the Government at Delhi does not create any right or liability, and which right or liability is created only on communication of the order, and which order dated 28.10.2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
