TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cannot invoke jurisdiction of Madras High Court as employer and employee relation would be only at Assam/West Bengal. If the employer is Union of India one can understand. If the other than Union of India, in that event, invoking Article 226(2) of Constitution is not feasible and appropriate. It is to be noted that 1st respondent is not necessary and proper party, he has been unnecessarily impleaded, since no order of 1st respondent is under challenge -- Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected on the score that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction in respect of quashing the action of the respondents-Assam/State of West Bengal. - Hon'ble Judges P.B. Bajanthri, J. For the Appellant : Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondents : S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Soc. Gen. and R.K. Sharma, CGC JUDGMENT P.B. Bajanthri, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs: That this writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner abovenamed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of certiorari to quash the revisional order dated 3.4.2018 passed in No. V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93 1 PLJR 85 F. (ii) Narendra Kumar Singh vs. National Co-operative Consumers Federation of India Limited reported in 1994 2 BLJ 232. (iii) Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India reported in 2003 2 PLJR 151. (iv) Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2014 5 Supreme 649. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. On maintainability of the present petition, undisputed facts are that petitioner was working in Assam with the C.I.S.F. and he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and it was concluded in imposition of penalty of dismissal from service and it was confirmed by an Officer who was stationed at Assam and further revisional authority at Kolkata has affirmed the order of dismissal as well as appellate authority's order. In the light of these facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Tekari, District-Gaya, State of Bihar, hence, whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction in quashing the impugned orders and direction could be given to the office situated in Assam and Kolkata (West Bengal) or not? 9. Whether any writ could be issued to the respondents to the writ petition and which is permanently located outsid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Punjab High Court. This involves considerable hardship to litigants from distant places. It is, therefore, proposed to amend Article 226 so that when any relief is sought against any Government authority or person for any action taken, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arise may also have jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions, orders or writs. The other new proposals are of a minor character 15. Article 226 was amended while incorporating Clause 2. Clause 2 reads as under:- (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the sea of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. The effect of the amendment is that it made the accrual cause of action an additional ground to confer jurisdiction to a High Court under Article 226. Clause (2) would enable the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises to issue direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having its offices at different places. Therefore, the citation referred by the petitioner in the case of Naval Kishore Sharma's case is distinguishable as in that case Naval Kishore Sharma was working under the Central Government Organization and it was part and parcel of Union of India. Therefore, any claim against Union of India and its sister concern territorial jurisdiction could be invoked all over India. 16. In the case of Oil Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711, Supreme Court held that the question as to whether the Court has a territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, must be concluded on the basis of pleadings made in the petition, the truth or otherwise thereof being immaterial. In the same decision, Supreme Court was pleased to observe that: So also the mere fact that it sent fax messages from Calcutta and received a reply thereto at Calcutta would not constitute an integral part of the cause of action. (Para No. 8) 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Swaika Properties, reported in (1985) 3 SCC, 217, opined that mere service of a notice would not give rise to any cause of action unles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the writ petitioner and the view to the contrary taken by the Division Bench cannot be sustained. In view of the above finding, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the case of Abdul vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1979, Calcutta, 354 and also in the case of Union of India vs. Oswal Industries, reported in (1984) 2 SCC 646, the Courts have held that cause of action accrued in 'X place, if the Head office-respondent is in 'Y place. Aggrieved person who is at 'Y cannot invoke jurisdiction at 'X place on the ground that Head Office is situated in 'X place. It was a case of disciplinary proceedings against railway servant who was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and it was concluded in Bihar, a petition cannot be entertained by the High Court of Calcutta merely on the ground that Head Office of the Railway was located in Calcutta. In the case of Oswal Industries cited supra, Supreme Court has strongly disapproved the practice of deliberately filing of writ petitions in distant High Courts as part of a manoeuvring legal battle. In the case of Bloom Dekor Ltd. vs. Subhash Himatal Desai, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 322, Supreme Court described a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
