Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Shivaji Pandey, J.
Sunil Kumar Yadav S/O Sri Rambachan Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through Secretary Home Department, New Delhi - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2998 of 2013
Decided On : 17-05-2016
The Patna High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's registration as a seaman by the Government of India. The Court found that the petitioner had not established that any part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The Court noted that the petitioner had been declared medically unfit for sea service due to a heart condition and had returned to his home in the District of Gaya, Bihar, where he had been making all correspondence with regard to his disability compensation. The Court also noted that the petitioner had received a letter of refusal dis-entitling him from disability compensation at his home address in Bihar. However, the Court found that these facts did not establish that a part or fraction of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a seaman, was declared medically unfit for sea service due to a heart condition. He returned to his home in the District of Gaya, Bihar, where he made all correspondence with regard to his disability compensation. The Government of India issued an order cancelling the petitioner's registration as a seaman. The petitioner challenged the order in a writ petition filed in the Patna High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Patna High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the writ petition. The Court found that the petitioner had not established that any part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the Patna High Court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner had not established that any part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The Court noted that the petitioner had been declared medically unfit for sea service due to a heart condition and had returned to his home in the District of Gaya, Bihar, where he had been making all correspondence with regard to his disability compensation. The Court also noted that the petitioner had received a letter of refusal dis-entitling him from disability compensation at his home address in Bihar. However, the Court found that these facts did not establish that a part or fraction of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Shivaji Pandey, J.
In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 02.11.2012 issued by the Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Karnataka Kerala Region, Bangalore, whereby and where under the petitioner was informed that his name has been withdrawn from the select list as he has not submitted the O.B.C. certificate in format.
2. At the present stage, the respondent has raised the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court, claiming that no cause of action or part thereof or even fraction of cause of action has taken place in the State of Bihar within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and as such, the present Writ Application is not maintainable. Therefore, it is better to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court, raising his grievance.
3. For deciding the issue of territorial jurisdiction and the issue of cause of action or the part thereof some relevant facts of this case has to be taken into consideration.
4. In the present case, the Staff Selection Commission of Bangalore has issued an advertisement, providing the qualification corresponding to the post mentioned in the said advertisement. The Notification surfaced in the State of Bihar and notified throughout the territory of India. The petitioner one of the aspiring candidates, applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (Fire) within the time, annexing his caste certificate, showing that he falls under the O.B.C. Category. Accordingly, the Admit Card was issued to the petitioner for Common Screening Test and fixed the examination centre at Prayag Mahila Vidyapith, Allahabad. After clearing the preliminary test, the petitioner was asked to appear in the final written test. The petitioner appeared in the final written test at the centre located in the State of Uttar Pradesh at Lukhnow in Gurunanak Girls Degree College, Chargbagh. As the petitioner did not submit his caste certificate in a proper format, it was communicated through the impugned order dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure-7 to the Writ Application) that his name has been withdrawn from the select list as he has not submitted the O.B.C. certificate in format.
5. The claim has been made by the respondents that as the advertisement was issued from the Karnataka and Kerala centre at Banglore and the petitioner has appeared in the examination at Allahabad and later on the petitioner has appeared in the final written test at Lukhnow, mere communication of the impugned order will not create any cause of action in favour of the petitioner to approach this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, communication of the result or communication of letter withdrawing his name from the select list at his native place, will not in any manner create a semblance of cause of action and as such, this Court should not entertain this Writ Application and dismiss the same, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the proper forum in accordance with law.
6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) 2014 (4), P.L.J.R., page 227, paragraph No. 20.
(ii) 2015 (7) S.C.C., page 130
(iii) 1961, S.C., page 533
(iv) 2001 (9) S.C.C., page 525
(v) 2007 (11) S.C.C., page-335
(vi) 1985 (3) S.C.C., page 217
(vii) 2002 (1) S.C.C., page 567
(viii) 1988 (Allahabad), page 36
(ix) 2009 (1) P.L.J.R., page 553
(x) 2003 (3) P.L.J.R., 479
(xi) 2002 (4) P.L.J.R., page 36
(xii) 2001 (4) P.L.J.R., 678
7. In contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has very much territorial jurisdiction to entertain this Writ Application and giving relief to the petitioner. For creating the cause of action he has placed some facts indicating having a jurisdiction to pass an order in this Writ Application as he has submitted that the petitioner could know about the vacancy for the post of Sub-Inspector (Fire) through an advertisement; he has submitted application from his native place and s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
