Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pintu Mohanta vs The Union Of India & Ors on 4 April, 2019
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :- Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha
WP No. 4294 (W) of 2019
Pintu Mohanta
Vs.
The Union of India & Ors.
For the writ petitioner :- Sk. Mujibar Rahman, Advocate
For the Respondents :- Mr. Pramod Kumar Drolia, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Judgment on :- 04.04.2019 Amrita Sinha, J.:-
The petitioner is a permanent resident of Odisha. He was serving as a constable attached with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF in short). He was appointed on 19th January, 2016 and was posted in the 131 Battalion CRPF Patna, Bihar.
The petitioner was removed from service with effect from 28th September, 2016. He preferred an appeal before the competent authority through his learned advocate on 28th November, 2018. The Inspector General of Police, MP Sector, CRPF Bhopal vide a letter dated 31st January, 2019 replied to the said legal notice sent on behalf of the petitioner and confirmed that the order of removal from service has been made according to the CRPF Rules after conducting departmental enquiry. The authority opined that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was in order and based on the principle 2 of natural justice. The punishment is perfectly fine and in consonance with the offence committed by the employee.
At the opening of the case the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities raise a preliminary objection as regards to the maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta. It has been specifically submitted that the High Court at Calcutta does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The cause of action arose beyond the State of West Bengal. No part of the cause of action arose within the State of West Bengal. The learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
In reply to the objection raised by the respondents the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that the petitioner was in the service of the CRPF and his service is transferable throughout India. He places strong reliance upon the statements made in certain paragraphs in the writ petition. The same are set out herein below:
"Paragraph - 3. That the petitioner submits that henceforth for all purports, intents, communications and service of notices, the address of his Ld. Lawyer at Kolkata situated at "Emerald House", 1B, Old Post Office Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700 001 may be used for these purpose by the respondents or on their behalf, which is located within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court."
"Paragraph - 4. That, the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities made several correspondences to the aforesaid address which gave rise of the part of cause of action of this Hon'ble Court at Calcutta, for entertaining and adjudicating this Writ Application of the petitioner having integral part of cause of action within the meaning of various judicial pronouncements for exercising of its power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or Authorities or the residence of such person is not within 3 those territories within the meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India."
"Paragraph - 17. That, it is expedient to mention that copy of the above Office Order was forwarded to the address of the Ld. Lawyer located at "Emerald House", 1B, Old Post Office Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata - 700001. In reply to the said information, the Ld. Lawyer of the petitioner issued letter narrating the facts and circumstances and requested the respondents to do the needful in the matter by his letter dated 27.08.2018. The petitioner craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to produce and refer the above letter dated 27.08.2018 of his Ld. Lawyer, if necessary, at the time of hearing of this application."
"Paragraph - 45. That it is submitted that the part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as stated herein before. That apart the petitioner was a combatised member of All India Service. Therefore, relying upon many decisions and judicial pronouncements both reported and unreported passed by the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta can exercise its inherent power to issue direction(s), order(s) or writ(s) to any Government Authority as the cause of action, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, notwithstanding the seats of Governmental authorities are located not within this territory, within the meaning of the provisions of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India."
The main thrust of the argument of the ld. advocate is that he is the authorised agent of the petitioner and since all the communications relating to the petitioner was forwarded to his office at Kolkata accordingly the High Court at Calcutta has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
The learned counsel refers to the cause title as well as the affidavit of the writ petition wherein the address of the petitioner has been mentioned in 4 Odisha with a rider that the petitioner is presently stationed at Kolkata at the address which happens to be office of the learned counsel.
It was pointed out by the Court that communication or forwarding of any letter relating to a party at the address of the learned counsel at Kolkata does not give rise to any cause of action. It was also pointed out that in the absence of any cause of action arising within the State of West Bengal the Calcutta High Court will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition and grant relief to the petitioner.
The learned counsel was not amenable to any reason and insisted that the Court pass judgment in the matter and even if the writ petition is dismissed with costs he will proceed with the case and bear the cost on behalf of the petitioner. The Court time and again requested the petitioner not to waste the Court's time on issues that are well settled by several pronouncements of the High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the learned counsel was adamant and insisted upon proceeding with the case.
The learned counsel referred to series of cases in his support. He relies upon (2014)9 SCC 329/2014(9) SCALE 224 Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein the Court held that in order to maintain a writ petition the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondent within the territorial limit of the Court's jurisdiction.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2010 Delhi 43 (Full Bench) wherein the Court held that where an order is passed by an appellate authority or a revisional authority a part of the cause of action arises at that place. When the original authority is situated at one place and the appellate authority situated at another the writ petition would be maintainable at both the places.
5
Rakesh Kumar Khandelwal vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 Delhi 98 wherein the Court held that the litigant has the right to come to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. The Court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Court is attracted by the alleged cause of action.
M/s. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 Delhi 174 (Special Bench) wherein the Court held that even if a miniscule part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the writ petition would be maintainable before the Court however, the cause of action has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case of Alchemist Ltd. (2007)11 SCC/AIR 2007 SC 1812.
The learned counsel harps upon the fact that since communications were forwarded to his office at Kolkata accordingly as per the doctrine of Forum Conveniens the High Court at Calcutta will have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
The learned advocate appearing for the respondent authorities relies upon the order dated 16th November, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No. 26059 (W) of 2019 Asit Sikdar vs. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force & Ors. wherein the Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a member of CRPF on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.
The learned advocate also relies an order dated 12.06.2018 passed in WP No. 8889 (W) of 2016 Jyotsna Roy vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this High Court.
After hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and upon perusal of the judgments relied upon by the parties it seems that the learned counsel for the petitioner has simply misread and misinterpreted the 6 law laid down on the issue. Provisions of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India lays down that the High Court can issue writ if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Cause of action is a bundle of facts which is necessary for the litigant to prove his case. In the instant case the entire cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal. Under no stretch of imagination the territorial limits of the Calcutta High Court can be invoked for maintaining the present writ. None of the cases cited by the petitioner comes to his aid. On the contrary, all the cases speak against him.
The petitioner in practically all the paragraphs of the writ petition has tried to establish the fact that since certain correspondences in respect of the petitioner were forwarded to his learned counsel having office at Kolkata, a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The learned counsel vehemently argued that forwarding communications to the learned counsel form an integral part of the cause of action and he falls back upon the doctrine of 'Forum Conveniens' for approaching this Court.
He submits that there is none else but him to advise the petitioner. He submits that he made communications on behalf of his client only with the view to invoke jurisdiction of this Court.
Though the learned counsel places reliance on the aforesaid judgments but in none of the cases the Court held that mere forwarding a letter for communication gives rise to a cause of action. On the contrary the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Adani Export Ltd. (2002)1 SCC 567 held that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition it must disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause so as to empower the Court to decide the dispute. Each and every fact pleaded in the petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action.
7
In State of Rajasthan vs. M/S. Swaika Properties & Anr. (1985)3 SCC 217 the Court held that mere service of notice does not give rise to the cause of action within the territory unless the service of such notice was an integral part of the cause of action.
In the case of ONGC vs. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711 the Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed exemplary cost for not invoking Court's jurisdiction bona fide and to ensure such abuse of the Court's jurisdiction does not take place in future.
In the instant case none of the notices issued to the petitioner were served within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The order of removal was sent to the petitioner's permanent address at Odisha. Only a copy of the order of removal of the petitioner from service was forwarded to the address of the learned advocate at Kolkata on his request. Forwarding a copy of the impugned order at Kolkata does not give rise to any cause of action. Not even a miniscule part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.
Plainly speaking the learned advocate for the petitioner suggests that had the petitioner engaged a counsel from any other State namely Mumbai or Chennai then the cause of action would have arisen there. The argument forwarded by the learned counsel is such that the concept of "cause of action"
will be blown in the wind. If the submission of the petitioner is accepted then anybody making any communication from any part of the country may claim that a cause of action arose within that particular jurisdiction and the concept of territorial jurisdiction will be lost. Anybody and everybody will be able to move writ petitions anywhere and everywhere in the country. It is preposterous that such an argument was forwarded in the Court and inspite of repeated requests the learned counsel pressed the matter for hearing. 8
This is a fit case to be dismissed with exemplary costs not only for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court mala fide but also for wasting the valuable time of the Court. It is a sheer abuse of the process of law. Keeping in mind that the petitioner was removed from service way back in the year 2016 and he may be fleeced to cough up the cost that may be imposed, the Court exercises judicial restraint in imposing costs in the matter.
It appears that the petitioner was not properly advised or may be he has been wrongly advised to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner himself may not be aware as to where and which Court to approach for redressal of his grievances. The petitioner may have been misguided and showing the address of the learned counsel as the place where the petitioner was temporarily stationed the writ petition has been affirmed and filed before this Court.
Legal practice being a noble profession it is the bounden duty of an advocate to advise a litigant properly and not to embark upon misadventure at the cost of the litigant. Apart from wastage of valuable money considerable time gets wasted in the process which may adversely affect the merits of the case. The litigant without realising the legal aspect and the technical defect will blame the Court and the entire judicial system for not entertaining his case and further dismissing the same. He may also not be able to appreciate the reason as to why should he file the same petition all over again before another Court. It will give rise to multiplicity of proceedings and Courts will be filled up with frivolous litigations. The judicial profession will be put to disrepute. Such type of practice is extremely unhealthy and highly deprecated.
In view of the discussions made herein above the instant writ petition stands dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, however, without any order as to costs.9
The petitioner will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for necessary relief.
W.P. No. 4294(W) of 2019 is dismissed.
There will, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified photocopy of this judgement, if applied for, be supplied to the parties or their advocates on record expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)