2013 Supreme(Kar) 1429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
N. Kumar and Rathnakala, JJ.
Abdul Wajid - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 37302/2013 (S-KAT)
Decided On: 20.12.2013

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 226: [N. Kumar & Rathnakala, JJ] Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court - Part of cause of action arising within jurisdiction of one or other High Court or one or other Bench of same High Court - Held, Article 226 (1) neither speaks about location of a Government or about functioning of the Government. Therefore, the residence or location of the Government or of the person affected by any act of the Government has no relevance on the question of High Court’s Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the High Court depends on the person or authority passing the order and the place where the said order is passed or act or commission against which relief sought took place and whether the said place is within those territories in relation to which exercises jurisdiction.

        The question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise being immaterial. But the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. The cause of action has no relation whatsoever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or in other words, to the basis upon which the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.

        When an order is passed by a court or tribunal or an appellate/executive authority whether under the provision of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arise at that place. In a given case, the original authority which passed the original order may constitute in one place and appellate authority is constituted at another place. The place from where the appellate order or a revisional order is passed may give rise to part of cause of action although the original order was at a place outside the said area. A Writ petition challenging the order of appellate authority would lie both at the place where the original order was passed as well as the place where the appellate order was passed. Even if the original order not fall within the jurisdiction of a particular court, if the appellate order or revisional order falls within its jurisdiction as part of cause of action arising within its jurisdiction, the court within whose jurisdiction the said cause of action arises has jurisdiction to entertain Writ Petition. When the part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of one or other High Court or one or other Bench of the same High Court it will be for the petitioner to chose his forum. Therefore, it would be open to the litigant who is dominus litis to have his forum conveniens. The litigant has right to go to the court where part of cause of action arises. In such cases, it is incorrect to say that litigant chooses any particular Court. The choice is by reason of jurisdiction of the Court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court therefore, the Court will find out in each case as to whether jurisdiction of the court is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action and then exercise jurisdiction if cause of action falls within its jurisdiction.

        In the context of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Benches in Karnataka, any one of these Benches gets jurisdiction to entertain a matter even if a part of cause of action arises within their jurisdiction whether the case arises from one of the specified districts or not so as to determine the jurisdictional competence to hear, by reference to territory bifurcated between the principal seat of the Bench, shall be an issue to be decided in an individual case by the judge or judges hearing the matter if a question arise in that regard. Similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen in part within specified areas in Dharwad Zone or Gulbarga Zone and part outside the specified Dharwad or Gulbarga areas, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings either at Dharwad or Gulbarga or Bangalore. The Court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Court is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action, the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Full Court of the High Court has not been conferred with the legislative competence to define cause of action or to declare where it would be deemed to have arisen so as to lay down artificial or deeming test for determining territorial jurisdiction over an individual case or class of cases.

        Therefore, when the impugned order is passed within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Bangalore, the Principal Bench at Bangalore has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Similarly because the petitioner was working and residing at Bidar coming within the jurisdiction of Gulbarga Bench and an order is passed keeping him under suspension, even if it is to be held that the case is arising from out of Bidar, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the said orders both at the principal Bench at Bangalore and Bench at Gulbarga. The choice is that of the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition filed before the Principal Bench of High Court challenging the order passed by the KAT is maintainable.

       CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 226: [N. Kumar & Rathnakala, JJ] Writ petition - Maintainability - Objection by High Court Registry under guise of scrutiny of writ petition - Held, The High Court registry under the guise of scrutinizing the Writ Petition cannot raise objection regarding maintainability of writ petition and call upon the petitioner or his advocate to take back the papers and present it before the Benches at Dharwad or Gulbarga. When neither the Chief Justice nor the Full Court of High Court has the jurisdiction to decide whether any particular Bench in the High Court of Karnataka has the jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition and that the said issue has to be decided in an individual case by the judge or judges hearing the matter, the High Court office cannot raise such an objection and ask the petitioner or his advocate to comply with the same. The party or his advocate are not expected to convince the High Court registry in this aspect. Assuming that the High Court registry is of the view that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in any particular Bench, what they are expected to do is to put up a note in the order sheet bringing the said fact to the notice of the High Court Judge and list the Writ Petition before the Court for preliminary hearing. It is High Court Judge alone who has the jurisdiction to decide the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition the High Court Judge may in his or her discretion decide the question either before ordering notice or after the appearance of the respondent. Therefore, the registry cannot raise the said office objection and call upon the petitioner to satisfy them before the Writ Petition is listed for preliminary hearing.