Madhya Pradesh High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Guruprit Singh on 11 December, 2017
1
W.A. No. 189/2017
(Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others VS. Guruprit Singh and others)
Gwalior, 11.12.2017
Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Santosh Agrawal, learned counsel for
respondents No. 1 & 2.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 3/State.
This Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, takes exception to order dated 27/02/2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 8703/2016 and order dated 27/03/2017 passed in Review Petition No. 145/2017, whereby learned Single Judge taking into consideration that respondent has to his credit regular inter-state stage carriage permit to ply bus on the route Gwalior to Chandigarh for one single trip daily with counter signature of U.P. State and to pick-up and set down passengers at authorized bus stands of State undertaking/Corporation, disposed of the petition vide impugned order directing the respondent No. 4, the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Lucknow to decide the controversy faced by the respondents No. 1 and 2 in getting their bus parked at bus stand at Agra and till such decision is taken present appellants were restrained from causing any hindrance in pick-up and set down passengers from the bus stop.
Exception to the decision is taken on the ground that it was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of 2 learned Single Judge to have issued a mandamus when no cause of action had arisen within the State of Madhya Pradesh.
These contentions when considered in the teeth of the term contained in inter-state stage carriage permit issued in the State of Madhya Pradesh on the basis of reciprocal agreement with State of Uttar Pradesh and the fact that one of the terms of permit stipulates the availing of the facilities of pick-up and set down passengers from the bus stop belonging to the State undertakings (12- ikjLifjd ;krk;kr djkj ds dafMdk&pkj ¼iUnzg½ ds izko/kkukuqlkj bl vuqKk ij vkPNkfnr cl dk lapkyu mHk; jkT; esa fuxe dh clksa ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr cl LVS.Mksa ls gh gksxkA); and Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India which mandates that the power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. The contention that learned Single Judge lacked territorial jurisdiction must fail.
In Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [(2000) 7 SCC 640], it is held:-
"17. From the provision in clause (2) of Article 226 it is clear that the maintainability or otherwise of the writ petition in the High Court depends on whether the cause of action for filing the same arose, wholly or in part, within 3 the territorial jurisdiction of that Court.
18. In legal parlance the expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. (Black's Law Dictionary)
19. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment.
20. ........Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an inquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition.
Even in Union of India and others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and another [(2002) 1 SCC 567] whereon the appellants has placed reliance, it is held:-
"16. It is clear from the above constitutional provision that a High Court can exercise the jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in-part, arises."
In Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others [(2014) 9 SCC 329], it is held by their Lordships:-
"9. ...... On a plain reading of the amended 4 provisions in clause (2), it is clear that now the High Court can issue a writ when the person or the authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the court's territorial jurisdiction."
In view of the principle of law laid down in Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra), Union of India and others (supra) and Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) and taking into consideration the fact of the present case that inter-state regular permit was issued from the State of Madhya Pradesh in consonance with reciprocal agreement with the State of Uttar Pradesh and the stipulations contained in the permit that the permit holder shall be entitled to pick-up and set- down passengers at authorized bus stands of State undertaking/ Corporation. The contentions on behalf of the appellant that it was beyond jurisdiction of learned Single Judge to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a mandamus to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh is negatived.
No other grounds are raised.
Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
shubh*
SHUBHANKAR
Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, MISHRA 2.5.4.20=e1f45241b0d8e47d03567942a7e835e2631b7c3ff747e9 7afd6840fdaafb8d3a, cn=SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2017.12.13 17:32:35 +05'30'