Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Basanta Kumar Sethi vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 September, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P.No.5198(W) of 2011
Basanta Kumar Sethi
v.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr.Kallol Basu
Mr.Ayanabha Raha .....for the petitioner
Mr.Somenath Bose
Mr.Shakul Mohammed Akhter ....for the first & second respondents
Mr.Shuvanil Chakraborty Mr.Debashis Banerjee ....for the fourth & fifth respondents Heard on: September 8, 2011 Judgement on: September 8, 2011 The Court:- The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated March 16, 2011 is questioning a decision of the Director General of Shipping dated February 25, 2011 communicated by a letter of one Institute of Marine Engineers (India) dated March 5, 2011 (at p.44).
Relevant part of the letter dated March 5, 2011 is quoted below:
"As per the DGS letter No.EN/EXAM-17(1)/2011 dt.25.02.2011, your CI.III CEO examination conducted in the Nov.2010 is cancelled and considered as null and void. You are required to appear for re-examination without any fee at MMD, Kolkata as per the following schedule."
The petitioner took the exam for obtaining a certificate of competency under the Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers) Rules, 1998. The Director having his office in Mumbai authorised the private institute to hold the exam, evaluate the scripts, and supply him the results.
2The institute held the exam providing option to the candidates to take it from any centre of the institute. The petitioner took the exam from a centre of the institute in Kolkata. Considering an allegation of copying by the petitioner, the Director cancelled his exam. The decision communicated to the institute by the office of the Director was communicated in brief form by the institute to the petitioner by the letter dated March 5, 2011.
Mr. Basu appearing for the petitioner has argued that since the Director cancelled the exam on the basis of an allegation of copying while taking the exam in the Kolkata centre of the institute, the petitioner is entitled to question the decision before this Court, for the allegation of copying is an integral part of the cause of action.
He has relied on the decision in Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K.Mishra, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 457 and also on a decision dated January 19, 2011, I gave in W.P.No.22106(W) of 2010 (Srrak-Reipl JV & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.).
It is not disputed that the petitioner's cause of action on which this petition has been filed is in the decision of the Director General of Shipping cancelling his exam. The decision was taken accepting the allegation that while taking the exam from the Kolkata centre of the institute, the petitioner was found copying. But, I am unable to see how this can be considered an integral part of the process through which the Director took the decision.
The petitioner was free to take the exam from any centre specified by the institute. The Director did not oblige the petitioner to take the exam from the Kolkata centre. His decision to cancel the exam has nothing to do with the location of the centre wherefrom the petitioner took the exam. In the decision making process that can only be questioned before the Writ Court the place where the copying took place has no role to play.
3The ratio of the decision in Rajendran Chingaravelu has no manner of application to this case. In my opinion, here no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territories in relation to which this Court exercises its jurisdiction under art. 226. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
For these reasons, I dismiss the petition making it clear that nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from questioning the decision before the Court having jurisdiction. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.) sm(c); ab(f)