Patna High Court - Orders
Arun Kumar Pandey vs The Union Of India & Ors on 2 July, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10599 of 2012
======================================================
Arun Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Ram Narayan Pandey, R/O Vill-Itwan, P.S.-
Bihta, Distt-Patna(Bihar).
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through Director General, Central Reserve Police
Force, New Delhi.
2. Inspector General of Police, N.E.Sector , C.R.P.F. Shillong (Meghalaya)
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Dayapur
Silchar (Assam), P.S.Udharband, Distt-Silchar (Assam).
4. Commandant 147 Batallion, C.R.P.F., Silchar (Assam).
5. Assistant Commandant-Cum-Enquiry Officer, C.R.P.F. Silchar (Assam)
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Raghib Ahsan (Asst.SG.)
======================================================
PRESENT: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN
ORDER
4 02-07-2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 18.02.2010 by which the Commandant (Disciplinary Authority), 147 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Silchar (Assam) dismissed the petitioner from his post of constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF for the sake of brevity). The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order of April, 2010 by which the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Silchar (Assam) rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner has further challenged revisional order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.10599 of 2012 (4) dt.02-07-2012 2 08.02.2012 by which the Inspector General of Police, N.E. Sector, CRPF, Shillong (Meghalaya) rejected petitioner's revision.
3. The preliminary objection of learned counsel for the respondents is that this writ petition is not maintainable in Patna High Court as the cause of action had arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of his dismissal as well as the subsequent appellate and revisional orders had been served upon the petitioner at his permanent residential house at village Itwan, P.S. - Bihta in the district of Patna (Bihar), which is apparent from the impugned orders themselves and hence the jurisdiction of challenging those orders lies within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court. In this connection he relies upon three decisions of Patna High Court, namely in case of Pramod Kumar vs. The Union of India & Ors. reported in 1999 (1) PLJR 82; in case of Sushil Kumar Pandey vs. Union of India & ors. reported in 2001 (4) PLJR 678; and in case of Lt. Col.Vijoy Kumar Prasad vs. The Union of India & ors. reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 427.
5. In addition to the aforesaid case laws learned Patna High Court CWJC No.10599 of 2012 (4) dt.02-07-2012 3 counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier he had challenged the appellate order of April, 2010 before the Patna High Court vide CWJC No.10678 of 2010 which was entertained by this Court and in that case no such objection regarding maintainability of that writ petition in the High Court had been raised by learned counsel for the respondents and after considering the case of the parties the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a Bench of this Court with a liberty to prefer revision against the impugned appellate order.
6. So far the second point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there was no occasion for considering the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court when the petitioner himself had prayed at the outset for permission to withdraw the writ petition in order to prefer revision against the impugned order. Hence the said order does not come to any help for the petitioner.
7. So far the abovementioned three decisions of this Court are concerned, they are with respect to the orders of dismissal having been served at the residential address of the petitioners of that case which were within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. The instant matter is a bit different as against the order of his dismissal the petitioner had filed an Patna High Court CWJC No.10599 of 2012 (4) dt.02-07-2012 4 appeal, thereafter he filed a revision, all of which were passed outside the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. Hence, the facts of this case are completely different to the facts of the aforesaid case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. The Apex Court had also considered this aspect of the matter and had decided the issues by way of two decisions in case of State of Rajasthan and others vs. M/s Swaika Properties and another reported in (1985) 3 Supreme Court Cases 217 and in case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and others reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 711. In the said case laws it had been specifically held that practice of the High Court of entertaining petitions merely because petitioner resides within its territorial jurisdiction even though no cause of action arose within jurisdiction was strongly deprecated. From the said decision it is quite apparent that mere fact that the petitioner resides within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court although his place of work was outside the said territorial jurisdiction and hence even if the communication was made to the petitioner within Bihar, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such writ petition. Patna High Court CWJC No.10599 of 2012 (4) dt.02-07-2012 5
9. The aforesaid case laws have also been followed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Gita Devi & Anr. vs. The Deputy General Manager, Allahabad Bank & Ors. reported in 2002 (4) PLJR 36 in which it was held as follows:-
"9. From the decisions and observations of the Supreme Court in the above noted two cases it is clear that the mere residence of the person within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court or his entering into correspondence, including receiving reply thereto would not confer jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition by the concerned High Court unless it forms an integral part of the cause of action. As is well known „cause of action‟ comprises of bundle of facts which are necessary to prove in order to succeed in any action in a Court of law. Where an application is sent for appointment from a place, the place as such does not become integral part of cause of action, for such an application can be sent from any place. If this fact were to constitute a cause of action, the result would be that a person would choose a particular place which he may consider convenient, and from there send his application, thereby conferring territorial jurisdiction on the concerned High Court. The fact that reply is sent to the applicant at that place has no significance, for the replies are normally sent at the address which is mentioned in the application.
10. In the above view of the matter, in the instant case, the fact that the petitioner sent application from Samastipur District and the respondent-Bank sent its reply there would not confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court. Sending application and receipt of reply thereto may be integral part of the cause of Patna High Court CWJC No.10599 of 2012 (4) dt.02-07-2012 6 action but the place from where it is sent cannot be treated as the integral part, in view of the above said decisions of the Apex Court."
10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held that this writ petition is not maintainable in the Patna High Court and accordingly, it is dismissed.
(S.N. Hussain, J) Harish/-