Patna High Court - Orders
Sanjay Kumar Singh & Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 22 September, 2010
Author: S K Katriar
Bench: S K Katriar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.1249 of 2004
1. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, S/o Sh. Devendra Prasad Singh, R/o
231B, Pataliputra Colony, Town and District- Patna.
2. Rajiv Ranjan, S/o Sh. Krishna Nandan Prasad Singh, R/o
"Panchvati" Indigo Nagar, Road No.3, Postal Park, Town and
District- Patna.
3. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Yogendra Kumar, R/o "Janaki Bhawan"
Teachers‟ Colony, Bus Stand, Town- Rajgir, District- Nalanda.
..... Petitioners..... Appellants.
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, through the Secretary, Department of
Finance, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Canara Bank, Head
Office-112, J.C. Road, Bangalore-560002.
3. The General Manager, Human Resources and Development
Department, Canara Bank, 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore-560002.
4. The General Manager, Canara Bank Probationary Officers‟ Project
2002, C/o Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, P.O. Box
No.9706, Borivilli, East, Mumbai-66.
5. The Regional Manager, Canara Bank, Regional Local Office, Luv
Kush Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna.
..... Respondents.... Respondents.
-----------
08- 22.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and
learned counsel for the Canara Bank and its functionaries.
The three appellants are aggrieved by the order dated
8.1.2004, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.8401 of 2003, and the analogous writ petitions, wherein it has been held that the present writ petition is not maintainable in this Court. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit.
2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The Bank had issued an advertisement which had appeared in the issue of Employment News for the period 2 26.10.2002-1.11.2002, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Probationary Officers. Sub-clause (xxix) of Clause-12 of the same stipulated as follows:
" 12. General conditions:
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
(xxix) Any resultant dispute arising out of this advertisement shall be subject to the sole jurisdiction of the Courts situated in Bangalore."
3. It is stated in the writ petition that the writ petitioners had written their examination papers in Delhi. They were not called for interview leading to the writ petition. Relying on sub-clause (xxix) of Clause 12 reproduced hereinabove, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Hence this appeal at the instance of the writ petitioners.
4. It appears that the three appellants had written the examination papers in Delhi. The Bank has its headquarters in Bangalore. The appellants claim to be residents of Bihar. Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India provides that the power to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in 3 relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are clearly of the view that the cause of action, wholly or in part, does not arise within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. The writ petitioners had taken examination in Delhi which was controlled by its headquarters in Bangalore. The petitioner‟s residence never gives jurisdiction to the Court. We entirely agree with the order of the learned Single judge.
5. Learned counsel for the Bank has rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, reported in A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1239, paragraphs 20 and 21 of which are relevant in the present context and are reproduced hereinbelow:
"20. When the court has to decide the question of jurisdiction pursuant to an ouster clause it is necessary to construe the ousting expression or clause properly. Often the stipulation is that the contract shall be deemed to have been made at a particular place. This would provide the connecting factor for jurisdiction to the courts of that place in the matter of any dispute on or arising out of that contract. It would not, however, ipso facto take away jurisdiction of other Courts. Thus, in Salem Chemical Industries v. Bird & Co., AIR 1979 Mad 16 where the terms and conditions attached to the quotation contained an arbitration clause provided that:
"any order placed against this quotation shall be deemed to be a contract made in Calcutta and any dispute arising therefrom shall be settled by an arbitrator to be jointly appointed by us", it was 4 held that it merely fixed the situs of the contract at Calcutta and it did not mean to confer an exclusive jurisdiction on the Court at Calcutta, and when a part of the cause of action had arisen at Salem, the court there had also jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
21. From the foregoing decisions it can be reasonably deduced that where such an ouster clause occurs, it is pertinent to see whether there is ouster of jurisdiction of other Courts. When the clause is clear, unambiguous and specific accepted notions of contract would bind the parties and unless the absence of ad idem can be shown, the other Courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction. As regards construction of the ouster clause when words like „alone‟, „only‟, „exclusive‟ and the like have been used there may be no difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim „expressio unius est exclusio alterius' -- expression of one is the exclusion of another may be applied. What is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. In such a case mention of one thing may imply exclusion of another. When certain jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to exclude all others from its operation may in such cases be inferred. It has therefore to be properly construed."
6. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(S K Katriar, J.) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.) S.K.Pathak/