9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity under the provisions of 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, a preliminary objection was raised with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It was argued that no cause of action or part of cause of action has accrued to the petitioners within the State of U.P. and merely because the appellate and the revisional order had been communicated to them at their respective home districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, same would not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the writ petitions. 3. The submission was that since the dismissal order has been passed by the Commandant, 129th Battalion, CRPF at Bhotgaon, Kokarajhar, Assam and was communicated to the petitioners there itself and further that the departmental appeal and revision have been rejected by the competent authorities at Bhopal, the remedy before the petitioners is to either approach the Gauhati High Court or Jabalpur High Court, whichever they choose. The writ petitions challenging the dismissal, appellate and revisional orders cannot be maintained in this Court. 4. The learned Single Judge in the referral order noted the arguments of Advocates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d replied and a decision on those representations were communicated to him on his home address in Bihar. Admittedly, appellant was suffering from serious heart muscles disease (Dilated Cardiomyopathy) and breathing problem which forced him to stay in native place, wherefrom he had been making all correspondence with regard to his disability compensation. Prima facie, therefore, considering all the facts together, a part or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court where he received a letter of refusal disentitling him from disability compensation." Shri Vijay Gautam has further placed reliance upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 785 of 2014 Bibhuti Narain Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India and others and Special Appeal No. 158 of 2016 Har Govind Singh Vs. Union of India and others. In both the judgments, the two Division Benches have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra). In the case of Bibhuti Narain Singh (supra) the Court has held that in view of the judgment of Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra), the communication of the penalty order to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, I am of the view that there is a conflict of opinion between the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra (supra) and Constable Lalji Pandey (supra) on one hand and the orders passed by the two Division Benches of this Court in the case of Bibhuti Narain Singh (supra) and Har Govind Singh (supra) in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) and this dispute, therefore, needs to be resolved by a larger Bench on the question with regard as to whether the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) in paragraph 17 can be said to be a binding precedent on this Court to entertain the above writ petitions or whether the observations of paragraph 17 were in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) in view of paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said judgment. OR In the alternative whether the judgment of the Full Bench in Rajendra Kumar Mishra (supra) and Constable Lalji Pandey (supra) can be said to still lay down the correct law in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra). Therefore, in my opinion thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence can be filed in any High Court in India as the Chief of Army Staff has been made respondent in that case. It was further urged that since the petitioner (therein) was resident of District Ballia within the State of Uttar Pradesh, the writ petition can be filed in the High Court at Allahabad. Considering the law propounded by the Apex Court, referring to the various decisions, it was held by the Full Bench in paragraphs '39', '40' '41' and '42' as under:- "39. Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it is a statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law. 40. For the reasons given above we are of the opinion that the Chief of Army Staff can only be sued either at Delhi where he is located or at a place where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 41. We may mention that a "cause of action" is the bundle of facts which, taken with the law applicable., gives the plai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajendra Kumar Mishra 2005 (1) UPLBEC 108, in principle has approved the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Saroj Mahanta (Mrs.), LT. Colonel 2003 (3) ESC 1419, wherein it was stated that in order to determine as to whether the Court has a jurisdiction to entertain a petition, the pleadings in the petition have to be examined to form an opinion as to whether a cause of action partly or fully has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The Division Benches in Saroj Mahanta (Mrs.), LT. Colonel 2003 (3) ESC 1419, in the facts situation of that cases had concluded that this Court did not have territorial jurisdiction. (b) In Constable Lalji Pandey1, the challenge before the Division Bench was to the punishment order dated 17.3.1994 of dismissal from service on the charge of unauthorized absence from duty. The writ petition was filed by the delinquent after exhausting departmental remedy of appeal as well as revision before the competent authorities which were also rejected. On a preliminary objection raised by the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, the Division Bench has relied upon the view taken by the Full Bench in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reconsideration by the Single Bench. We, however, may note that the same issue in Har Govind Singh3 had been remitted twice. In an earlier decision dated 27.4.2016, it was observed by the earlier Division Bench that the writ petition filed in the year 2004 had wrongly been dismissed after 12 years of its institution on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. Be that as it may, in our considered opinion, the conclusion drawn by the Division Bench in Har Govind Singh3 is not the law laid down as a binding precedent which merited this reference. The reference to the decision of the Division Bench in Har Govind Singh3 in the referral order is, thus, wholly irrelevant. (d) In Bibhuti Narain Singh2, the Division Bench of this Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma (2014) 9 SCC 329 has held that the part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, inasmuch as, the petitioner (therein) was posted in Faizabad, a District in the State of U.P. when the order of penalty of stoppage of annual increment was served upon him. It was held that though whole departmental proceedings concluded at the place beyond the ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action' means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court." In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. The mere service of notice under Section 52(2) of the Act on the respondents at their registered office at 18-B, Brabourne Road, Calcutta i.e. within the territorial limits of the State of West Bengal, could not give rise to a cause of action within that territory unless the service of such notice was an integral part of the cause of action. The entire cause of action culminating in the acquisition of the land under Section 52(1) of the Act arose within the State of Rajasthan i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at the Jaipur Bench. The answer to the question whether service of notice is an integral part of the cause of action within the meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution must depend upon the nature of the impugned order giving rise to a cause of action. ....xxxxxxxxxxx" The expression "cause of action" considered in the case of Oil and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. In Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India and another (2006) 6 SCC 207, it was observed that writ petitioners have to establish that a legal right claimed by them has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof. In Rajendran Chingaravelu vs. R.K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Others (2010) 1 SCC 457, the Apex Court while considering the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly the cause of action in maintaining a writ petition, held that clause (2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action arises wholly or in part, will have jurisdiction. This would mean that even if a small fraction of the cause of action (that bundle of facts which gives a petitioner, a right to sue) accrued within the territory of a State, the High Court of that State will have jurisdiction. Having consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat all claims and representations filed by the appellant (therein) were entertained by the respondent and replied and decision on those representations were communicated to him at his home address in Bihar. Considering these facts together, it was held in Nawal Kishore Sharma (2014) 9 SCC 329 that prima facie a part or a fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court where he received the letter of refusal disentitling him from disability compensation. It was clearly observed by the Apex Court that the order of dismissal of writ petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction cannot be sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 10. From an exhaustive reading of the decision in Nawal Kishore Sharma (2014) 9 SCC 329, it is evident that the question of maintainability of the writ petition in Patna High Court was decided in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case considering the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was found that legal right claimed by the appellant (therein) to disability compensation had been infringed by the respondent with rejection of his representations c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the instant writ petitions were maintainable before this Court i.e. to decide whether the facts pleaded in the writ petitions constitute cause of action, wholly or in part to confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court. 15. We may note that reference to a Larger Bench under Chapter V Rule 6 of the Allahabad High Court Rules' 1952 can only be made when there are conflicting views of the Coordinate Bench or the Larger Bench facing his Lordship on a subject/controversy before him making it difficult for him to take one or other view. Reference cannot be made merely to create a precedent or to get an authoritative pronouncement by the Larger Bench on any assumed conflict. Whenever a matter is placed before the Court (whether single or division bench) for adjudication, if a question of law of whatever importance arises before that bench, ordinarily the Court should decide it itself by applying the legal principles and judicial pronouncements on the subject. Only if the learned judge reaches at a conclusion that there is conflict of precedent, i.e. conflicting views of the Coordinate Bench or the Larger Bench on the subject making it impossible for the Court to decide this w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doubts which appear to exist. 18. As noted above in detail, it is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma (2014) 9 SCC 329 having traced the legal position pre and post insertion of clause (2) in Article 226 of the Constitution had come to the conclusion that the question of jurisdiction (territorial) must be decided in the facts of the case having due regard to the pleading in the writ petition. Appreciating a long line of decisions ranging from the year 1985 till the year 2000 and the scope of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, particularly the cause of action in maintaining a writ petition, it has been concluded in paragraph '16' of the report that to establish that the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of any High Court, the petitioner has to show that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof. 19. What would constitute a cause of action obviously would depend upon the nature a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petition must have the nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the Court. 23. In Ex. No. 1387-5234-M Sepoy/D.B./M.T., Chabi Nath Rai vs. Union of India & others 1997 (1) UPLBEC 236, a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the question whether the cause of action had arisen at Allahabad on communication of the decision on the representation of the appellant therein, had observed that the 'right to action' and 'cause of action' are two different things. This distinction was earlier considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Daya Shankar Bharadwaj v. Chief of Air Staff, New Delhi and others AIR 1988 Allahabad 36, wherein it was observed:- "A right of action arises as soon as there is an invasion of right. But 'cause of action' and 'right of action' ...... are not synonymous or interchangeable. A right of action is the right to enforce a cause of action (American Jurisprudence 2nd Edition Vol. 1.) A person residing anywhere in the country being aggrieved by an order of Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) UPLBEC 236 that even if the doctrine of merger is applied in relation to the statutory appeal, it is only the place where the appeal is decided, the Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the appellant. The decision of the Apex Court in Collector of Customs, Calcutta vs. East India Commercial Company Calcutta and others AIR 1963 SC 1124, was considered, wherein it was held that once an order of original authority is taken in appeal to the appellate authority, it is the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate order has been passed, will only have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. The view taken by the Division Bench in Chabi Nath Rai 1997 (1) UPLBEC 236 has been cited with approval by another Division Bench in Ex-Naik Ram Sharan vs. Union of India and others 6 to hold that mere communication of the appellate order at the place where the petitioner resides itself does not give any cause of action. 26. In Vishnu Kumar Bhargawa and others vs. Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay and others 1986 ALJ 1093, it was considered that the service of notice of the case filed in the Court of Metropolitan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the test or abstract from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision. The ratio decidendi has to be ascertained by an analysis of the facts of the case and the process of reasoning involving the major premise consisting of a pre-existing rule of law, either statutory or judge-made and a minor premise consisting of the material facts of the case under immediate consideration. It is not the duty of the Court to spell it out with difficulty in order to be bound by it. [See Krishna Kumar Vs. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1782]. 31. In light of the aforesaid, we conclude that the reference itself is not merited as there is no conflict of opinion in the decisions referred by the learned Single Judge. We, however, clarified the law (with the help of the long line of decisions of the Supreme Court) in order to lend a quietus to the doubts which appear to exist so that to avoid any further delay in the proceedings. 32. Reformulated question no. (iii) of the Reference is, thus, answered in negative. 33. Reference stands answered, accordingly. The individual writ petitions and Special Appeals may now be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
