Kerala High Court
Capt. B.S. Prakash vs Food Corporation Of India And Ors. on 14 August, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(3)KLJ505
Author: K.S. Radhakrishnan
Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, V.K. Mohanan
JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Question that arises for consideration in this case is whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the material, essential and integral part of cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Original petition was preferred seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P7, P8, P11 and P14 orders and also for a mandamus directing the respondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and also for other consequential reliefs. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner while he was employed as District Manager at Purnia (Bihar) during June 1981 to November, 1982. Memo of charges dated 19-10-84 was served on the petitioner while he was working in the Office of the Food Corporation of India at Trivandrum. Petitioner replied to the memo of charges. Enquiry officer was appointed and on completion of enquiry petitioner was imposed with a punishment of reducing the pay by two stages by order dated 7-2-1991. Order was communicated to the petitioner while he was working in the FCI Office at Pune. Petitioner preferred an appeal against that order. Appeal was rejected by order dated 6-4-1993 and the same was communicated to the petitioner while he was working as Deputy Manager (General), FCI, Regional Office, Trivandrum. Later punishment was imposed and he filed review petition. Since the same was not disposed of, he filed O.P. 20673/99 which was disposed of by this Court directing disposal of the review petition filed by the petitioner.
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted, even though disciplinary proceedings were initiated while he was working at Bihar he was served with memo of charge while he was working in the F.C.I. Office at Trivandrum and later the punishment was imposed and he filed appeal and the appellate order was also received while he was working at the Regional Office of the FCI, Trivandrum. Later review petition was disposed of by order dated 29-10-99. Counsel therefore submitted that this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this original petition since he has received various communications while working at Trivandrum.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand, contended that no cause of action either in part or in full arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. Counsel further submitted, the mere fact that the petitioner was working at Trivandrum Office and this Court directed disposal of the review petition filed by the petitioner would not confer any territorial jurisdiction on this court. In support of this Contention, counsel placed reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Alchemist Limited v. Sate Bank of Sikkim .
5. Question raised in this case is no more res integra. A Full Bench of this Court in Fakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commandant 1999 (3) KLT 629 held that when action complained of takes place outside territorial jurisdiction of High Court and an appeal there from is dismissed by an authority located outside the jurisdiction of the High Court cause of action wholly arises outside the jurisdiction of the High and Article 226(2) of the Constitution cannot be invoked to sustain a writ petition in this Court on the basis that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court merely because the appellate order communicated from the seat of the appellate authority was received while the petitioner was residing or working within the jurisdiction of this court. The apex court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra 2000 SC 2966 held that the power conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which "the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises" and it is no matter that the seat of the authority concerned is outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High Court. The court held that the amendment by which Clause (2) of Article 226 is inserted is thus aimed at widening the width of the area for reaching the writs issued by different High Court/Reference may also be made to the decision of the apex court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India wherein the apex court took the view that keeping in view the expressions used in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction of cause o; action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. The above mentioned decision was later considered by the apex court in Aalchemist Ltd's case (supra). Referring to various decisions the apex court held as follows:
From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner-appellant, would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a part of cause of action, nothing less than that.
6. It is therefore clear from the above mentioned pronouncement of the Supreme Court that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. True even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of Court. The Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. But as held in Kusum Ingot's case that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.
7. We are of the view, so far as this case is concerned, cause of action arose entirely outside jurisdiction of this Court and not even a small part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court the mere fact that petitioner was residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this court or that he had received the communication from the authority which is outside jurisdiction of the is court would not confer jurisdiction on this court. For the above mentioned reasons we agree with the learned single Judge that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this original petition.
Writ appeal lacks merits and is dismissed.