The High Court has jurisdiction to issue an appropriate writ against the Union of India and other respondent authorities notwithstanding the fact that its seat was not located in the territory in relation to which some actions were taken against the appellant.

Radha Mohan Prasad, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.10.1996, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. no. 11185 of 1996 recalling the order dated 9.4.1996 and dismissing the writ petition for want of jurisdiction.

2. In the writ application the grievence of the appellant was as against his super-session in the rank of Major General after rejection of his statutory complaint by the Central Government. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 9.4.1996 found the grievance of the appellant to be legitimate, as there was nothing on record to indicate that the Central Government had considered his grievence as regards the A.C.R. for the period 1.9.91 to 20.3.92 and delayed A.C.R. for the period 21.3.92 to 15.7.92 and directed the Central Government in the Ministry of Defence to consider the statutory complaint as regards the relief claimed in its paragraph no. 13 (a) and communicate the decision in accordance with rules to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said orders. The Central Government communicated its decision vide order dated 10.5.1996 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) rejecting the petitioner appellant's statutory complaint. The validity of the said order was also challenged by filing an amendment petition, which was allowed vide order dated 21.5.96. However finally the writ was dismissed by the impugned order as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.

3. This appeal was heard for admission on several dates and vide order dated 26.2.97 was admitted and fixed for its listing for hearing on 26th March, 1997 as first case subject to part-heard. On 9.4.97 this matter was heard and on the request of the learned Counsel for the respondents this Court directed for its listing for further hearing on 21st April, 1997. Meanwhile it was directed that the case of the appellant for promotion on the post of Maj. General will be considered by no. 1 Selection Board in its next meeting scheduled on 14th to 20th April, 1977 ignoring the DVBan and contemplated censure pursuant to impugned notice to show cause and the A.C.R. for 1988-89 and Receiving Officer Assessment ICR covering the period 1.9.91 to 20.3.92, which are under consideration in this case. This Court further directed that the retirement, if any, of the appellant shall be subject to result of this appeal.

4. In order to appreciate the question considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, I consider it pertinent to mention here the relevant facts. In the writ petition the prayer of the appellant was to quash the order dated 30.1.95 (Annexure-5), which is annexure-1 to this L.P.A., whereby the appellant has been informed that his acting promotion to the rank of Maj. General was considered by no. 1 Selection Board held on 21-22nd October. 1994 as a fresh case and he has not been selected for promotion as also the order dated 28.9.95 (Annexure-10) a true copy whereof has been annexed as annexure-2 to this appeal and the order dated 11.5.96 (Annexure-13) whereby his statutory complaint has been rejected.

5. It is not disputed that the appellant has been posted as Commander of Bihar and Orissa Sub-Area at Danapur Cantt since 19th May, 1994 and that the aforementioned orders impugned in the writ petition were communicated to him during his posting at Danapur.

6. It appears that learned Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of this Court to hear the writ petition and submitted that mere communication of the orders impugned in the writ case cannot give jurisdiction to this Court, inasmuch as, according to the learned Counsel everything was done at Delhi. The impugned orders were issued at New Delhi and became effective the moment they were issued. The Selection Board was also convened at New Delhi, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at Patna. The learned Counsel also contended that the impugned annual confidential reports were rec