S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this application inter alia has questioned the vires of Sections 122 and 123 of the Army Act.

( 2 ) THE offices of the respondents are outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The only cause of action which is said to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, as stated in paragraph 5 (c) of the writ affidavit, is service of the notice dated 18-3-1997, which reads thus:" (C) The initial cause of action having been arisen with the recall of the petitioner vide order No. 346103/ 36/a dated 24. November 1997 of the respondents herein served upon the. petitioner herein at his village Kodair, the: Kollapur, Dist. Mahaboobnagar (A. P.)".

( 3 ) SUCH service of summons on a witness to appear in a Court of inquiry, in our opinion, does not give rise to any cause of action, to question the order of punishment imposed upon him, particularly when at the relevant point of time, he was neither posted in the State of Andhra Pradesh nor was he charge sheeted; nor any disciplinary proceeding now before the Summary Court martial was held; nor the order of punishment was passed and communicated within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

( 4 ) IN State of Rajasthan vs. M/s. Swaika properties and another the Apex Court has held that mere service of notice by itself would not give rise to a cause of action, pursuant to which the writ Court gets jurisdiction in the matter. This aspect of the matter has further been clarified by the apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and another wherein it has been held-"under Art. 226 a High Court can exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. The expression cause of action means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitled him to a judgment in his favour by the court. 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 enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. Thus the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition, the truth or otherwise of the averments made in the petition being immaterial. "

( 5 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that as no part of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this writ petition is not maintainable. However, it goes without saying that the petitioner shall be entitled to have his remedies before a Court having jurisdiction in this regard.

( 6 ) WITH the aforementioned observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document