Karnataka High Court
K.P Radhakrishnan vs Sahitya Akademi Rabindra Bhavan on 13 July, 2012
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.653 OF 2011 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
K.P.RADHAKRISHNAN,
S/O LATE A.P.RAMANKUTTY,
AGED 49 YEARS
PROGRAMME ASSISTANT,
SAHITYA AKADEMI,
DEPARTMENT OF ART & CULTURE BUILDING,
BEACH ROAD, PUDUCHERRY,
R/A: No.19, UNITY LANE,
EJIPURAM, VIVEKANAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 047
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SAHITYA AKADEMI
RABINDRA BHAVAN,
NO.35, FEROZESHAH ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110 001,
R/BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY -
SRI. R.K.SHARMA.
2. SRI AGRAHARA KRISHNA MOORTHY,
SECRETARY,
S/O A.P.J.KUMBI JETTY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
SAHITYA AKADEMI, RABINDRA BHAVAN,
2
NO.35, FEROZESHAH ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
3. MRS. T.R.MEENALOCHANI,
W/O SRI RAMANATHAN,
AGED 46 YEARS,
ASSISTANT EDITOR,
SAHITYA AKADEMI,
CENTRAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 1.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY M/S. PRAMILA ASSOCIATES: SMT. GEETHA MENON
FOR R1& R2.) (SRI. A.V.SRINIVASA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
33504/2009 DATED 14.01.2011.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, MANJUNATH, J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The short question that arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal is:
Whether the writ petition filed by the appellant in High Court of Karnataka is maintainable or not?
3. The respondent No.1 as per Annexure-'B' notified inviting applications for the post of Assistant 3 Editor at its Chennai Office. The 1st respondent is situated in New Delhi. The post to be filled up is for its Regional Office at Chennai. Any eligible candidates could have applied for the post. Permission is also granted to submit the application at Regional Office in Bangalore. The appellant who is a resident of Bangalore submitted the application in the Regional Office of the 1st respondent in Bangalore. He was not selected. However 3rd respondent was selected by the 1st respondent. Challenging the selection of the 3rd respondent the writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge.
4. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that the High Court of Karnataka has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same the present appeal is filed.
4
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the cause of action is a bundle of facts since the application has been received by the 1st respondent through its Regional Office at Bangalore the writ petition is maintainable. To support his view he has relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of D.L.Suresh Babu and etc., Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and others reported in AIR 1983 Karnataka Page 43. Relying upon this he contends that the Court of Bangalore got territorial jurisdiction.
6. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents contend that mere receipt of an application or despatch of an application from the place of residence of an applicant cannot constitute a cause of action to initiate the proceedings within the jurisdiction of his residence. According to her the 1st respondent office is in Delhi. The notification was to fill up the post of Assistant Editor at Chennai Office and the interviews were held in Chennai. Therefore, no point of cause of 5 action has arisen. In the circumstances she requests the Court to allow the application.
7. We are of the opinion that there are no merits in the appeal for the following reasons. It is no doubt true that a liberty was given to the applicants to submit their applications at the Regional Office of Bangalore and similarly it was also open for the applicants to send the applications through post and there is no restriction for any eligible candidate to apply throughout India. Therefore if the analogy of the applicant is accepted a person from Assam who has posted the application through post can also contend that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of his place. Normally cause of action would arise where the defendant / respondent resides. We could have appreciated the arguments of Mr. Keshava Bhat provided interview has been conducted at Bangalore. Interview has been conducted at Chennai, the applications were invited to fill up the post at Chennai 6 and mere receiving of an application at Bangalore cannot be considered to fix the jurisdiction of the Court.
In the circumstances, we are of the view that there are no merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. It is open for the appellant to challenge the order of the 3rd respondent before the appropriate Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE GH