Allahabad High Court
Mohan Prakash vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 24 September, 2020
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7337 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mohan Prakash Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey,Grijesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Prashant Singh Som Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Petitioner's grievance is that his services have been dispensed with by the office of Commandant, 5th Battalion, Indo Tibbat Border Police Force vide order dated 16.7.2014. Thereafter petitioner has filed an appeal that too has been dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2018 as has been communicated vide order dated 4.12.2018. Petitioner's contention is that earlier he had filed a Writ -A No. 18866 of2019 in which it was observed that petitioner has appropriate remedy available to him under law and therefore the writ petition was dismissed with liberty aforesaid.
2. It is petitioner's contention that thereafter he has filed a revision before respondent no. 2 which is pending before respondent no. 2 since 7.3.2020. Therefore, direction be issued to respondent no. 2 to decide the pending revision of the petitioner no. 3.
3. Sri Prashant Singh, learned A.S.G.I submits that if a direction is issued to respondent no. 2 to decide the pending revision then he shall communicate such decision and ask the authorities to decide the pending revision.
4. In case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others; (2011) 9 SCC 329, Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions contained in Article 226 (2) dealing with the jurisdiction of the High Court noted in para-16 that "the question whether or not cause of action wholly or in pat for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limit of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of ht proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringe by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court's jurisdiction."
5. In case of Alchemist Ltd Vs State Bank of Sikkim and others as reported in (2007) 11 SCC 335, it has been held as under in following paras:-
16. It may be stated that by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, Clause (1-A) was renumbered as Clause (2). The underlying object of amendment was expressed in the following words:
"Under the existing Article 226 of the Constitution, the only High Court which has jurisdiction with respect to the Central Government is the 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 whosejurisdiction the cause of action arises may also have jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions, orders or writs."
(emphasis supplied) The effect of the amendment was that the accrual of cause of action was made an additional ground to confer jurisdiction on a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
18. The legislative history of the constitutional provisions, therefore, makes it clear that after 1963, cause of action is relevant and germane and a writ petition can be instituted in a High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which cause of action in whole or in partarises.
20. It may be stated that the expression "cause of action" has neither been defined in the Constitution nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It may, however, be described as a bundle ofessentialfacts necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed. Failure to prove such facts would give the defendant a right to judgment in his favour. Cause of action thus gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit.
22. For every action, there has to be a cause of action. If there is no cause of action, the plaint or petition has to be dismissed.
37. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in a catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the appellant-petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes amaterial,essential, orintegralpart of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a "part of cause of action", nothing less thanthat.
38. In the present case, the facts which have been pleaded by the appellant Company, in our judgment, cannot be said to be essential, integral or material facts so as to constitute a part of "cause of action" within the meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. The High Court, in our opinion, therefore, was not wrong in dismissing the petition.
6. In the present case, it is evident that petitioner's order of dismissal has been passed by respondent no. 3, place of whose posting has been cleverly suppressed by the petitioner as is apparent from petitioner in the cast title of the petition, but it is apparent from relevant annexures that such Commandant is stationed at Leh. The order dismissing the appeal was also passed by the office of Dy. Inspector General of ITBP of Sector Head Quarters, Laddakh and even revision petition has been filed before respondent no. 2. Therefore, no cause of action has accrued within territorial jurisdiction of this High Court.
7. In view of such facts this Court is of the opinion that it has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the writ petition and therefore, for want of jurisdiction this writ petition is not entertainable at Allahabad, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.9.2020/S.K.S.