Allahabad High Court
Har Govind Singh (Inre 6092 S/S 2004) vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home ... on 26 November, 2019
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 158 of 2016 Appellant :- Har Govind Singh (Inre 6092 S/S 2004) Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs & 5 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Rajedra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,Savitra Vardhan Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India makes it clear that the High Court exercising its jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action arises wholly or in part for the exercise of such power.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by order dated 10.04.2004 he has been dismissed from service and started residing at village Bahlolpur, District Pratapgarh, within the State of U.P.. therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is further submitted that if we go through paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court exactly on the similar and identical circumstances has rejected the preliminary objection by holding that cause of action partly arose on his native place and observed that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction is bad. The Apex Court set-aside the order and writ petition was remitted to the leaned writ Court for deciding the same in accordance with law.
Per contra learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention towards the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (1) UPLBEC 108, wherein it has been submitted that the order dated 10.04.2004 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, 83 Battalion Central Reserve Police, Force, Hyderabad and therefore the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction of U.P. and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
Considering the aforesaid and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others (Supra), we set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the writ court to decide it afresh in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the special appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 A.K. Singh (Alok Mathur, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.)