Madras High Court
T.Ramesh Chandrasekar … vs The Commissioner Of Milk Production And on 26 April, 2023
Author: P.D. Audikesavalu
Bench: P.D. Audikesavalu
W.P. No. 1363 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.04.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 1363 of 2023
and
W.M.P. Nos. 1423, 1426 and 5313 of 2023
T.Ramesh Chandrasekar … Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Commissioner of Milk Production and
Dairy Development Department,
Mathavaram Milk Colony,
Chennai – 600 051.
2. The Chairman representing the Board cum Competent Authority,
Tanjore District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited,
Nanjikottai Road,
Tanjore.
3. The General Manager,
Tanjore District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited,
Nanjikottai Road,
Tanjore.
4. The Deputy Registrar (Dairying),
Tanjore District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited,
Nanjikottai Road,
Tanjore. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
in connection with the impugned order passed by the First Respondent in Na.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P. No. 1363 of 2023
Ka. No. 1330/N.3/2022-2 dated 28.12.2022 and the consequential order passed
by the Third Respondent in Na. Ka. No. 650/admin/81 enquiry/2021 dated
03.01.2023 and quash the same and further direct the Respondents to permit the
Petitioner to continue in the post of Extension Officer Grade II within a
reasonable time with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mrs. R.Anitha,
Special Government Pleader
(for R1)
Mr. J.Ravindran,
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Mr. V.Rajinikanth (for R2 to R4)
ORDER
Heard Mr. S.Sivakumar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mrs. R.Anitha, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. J.Ravindran, Learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. V.Rajinikanth, Learned Counsel for the Second to Fourth Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9 W.P. No. 1363 of 2023
2. The cancellation of the appointment of the Petitioner in the services of Tanjore District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., is assailed in this Writ Petition.
3. It is not in dispute that the offices of the Second to Fourth Respondents are situated within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of this Court. The only reason stated by the Petitioner for approaching the Principal Seat of this Court instead of Madurai Bench is that the office of the First Respondent is located in Chennai. There cannot be any doubt that the First Respondent exercises powers for the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu, but it cannot mean as if the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court at Chennai. Even if it is assumed that a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of this Court, the principle of forum conveniens would come into play as held by the Division Bench of this Court in C.Ramesh -vs- Director General of Police (Order dated 06.06.2013 in W.P. (MD) No. 8790 of 2013), as follows:-
“7. Exercise of jurisdiction is based on arising of the cause of action, either in whole or in part in any one of the said Revenue Districts. [See RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES' https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/9 W.P. No. 1363 of 2023 ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTEHRS (2001 (2) SCC 294) and B.STALIN Vs. THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2012 (3) LW 489 (FB))].
8. It should be remembered that the part of cause of action must be substantial in nature. The territorial jurisdiction of the Court is linked with the place of accrual of cause of action. [See U.P. RASHTRIYA CHINI MILL ADHIKARI PARISHAD, LUCKNOW Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS (1995 (4) SCC
738)].
9. Referring to KUSUM INGOTS & ALLOYS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2004 (3) CTC 365), a Full Bench of this Court in SANJOS JEWELLERS Vs. SYNDICATE BANK, BANGALORE AND OTHERS (2007 (5) CTC 305), held as under:-
"30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/9 W.P. No. 1363 of 2023 Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the Doctrine of forum conveniens. [See BHAGAT SINGH BUGGA Vs. DEWAN JAGBIR SAWHNEY, AIR 1941 CAL 670 : ILR (1941) 1 CAL 490; MADANLAL JALAN Vs. MADANLAL, 1945 (49) CWN 357: AIR 1949 CAL 495; BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. Vs. JHARIA TALKIES & COLD STORAGE (P) LTD., 1997 CWN 122; S.S.JAIN & CO. Vs. UNION OF INDIA, 1994 (1) CHN 445, and NEW HORIZONS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1994 DEL 126]."
10. Question of entertaining a lis disclosing a cause of action or part of cause of action is based on the averments contained in the affidavit etc. At that stage, the truth or otherwise of the averments need not be gone into. But, there must be necessary averments disclosing a cause of action, so that the Court can take cognizance of/entertaining the lis exposed in the petition for taking further action. [See OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION Vs. UTPAL KUMAR BASU AND OTHERS (1994 (4) SCC 711)].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/9 W.P. No. 1363 of 2023
11. A Court cannot arrogate/assume/confer upon itself a jurisdiction-territorial jurisdiction, when it has no such jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction to entertain a matter goes to the root of the matter, otherwise whatever action taken or orders passed by the Court becomes a nullity, it is non est and of no consequence at all resulting in wasting of precious public time. Courts are barred from indulging in hypothetic and academic exercises.” Having regard to the aforesaid legal position viz-a-viz factual matrix of this case, the cause of action for the Writ Petition, would have to be necessarily construed as having arisen wholly outside the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of this Court, notwithstanding that the office of the First Respondent is located in Chennai. Though obvious, it is made clear that no view has been expressed by this Court on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter.
4. When it is pointed out that the Writ Petition cannot be entertained in the Principal Seat of this Court in that backdrop, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to file https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/9 W.P. No. 1363 of 2023 fresh Writ Petition for the same relief before the Madurai Bench of this Court and he has made an endorsement to that effect in the court record.
In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting such liberty. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
26.04.2023 vjt Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note: Issue order copy on 28.04.2023.
To
1. The Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development Department, Mathavaram Milk Colony, Chennai – 600 051.
2. The Chairman representing the Board cum Competent Authority, Tanjore District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Nanjikottai Road, Tanjore.
3. The General Manager, Tanjore District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Nanjikottai Road, Tanjore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/9 W.P. No. 1363 of 2023
4. The Deputy Registrar (Dairying), Tanjore District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Nanjikottai Road, Tanjore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/9 W.P. No. 1363 of 2023 P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
vjt W.P. No. 1363 of 2023 26.04.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/9