Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.
Sukanta Mitra
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
W.P. No. 3148(W) of 2003
Decided On : March 5, 2003
WRIT PETITION - JURISDICTION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - PART CAUSE OF ACTION - Whether High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ application even if all allegations made in writ application are presumed to be true.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a dismissed employee of Border Security Force, challenged the order of dismissal passed against him while he was posted in Rajasthan. All the respondents were staying outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The petitioner argued that the cause of action partly arose within the jurisdiction of the court as the order of dismissal was served upon him in West Bengal and he had preferred a review application from the same state.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Calcutta High Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ application as none of the respondents resided within its territorial limit and the cause of action had wholly arisen outside the state. The court clarified that the communication of the final order to the petitioner within the state did not give rise to any cause of action.
Issues: 1. Whether the Calcutta High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ application challenging the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner in Rajasthan. 2. Whether the service of the order of dismissal upon the petitioner in West Bengal and his subsequent filing of a review application from the same state constitute a part of the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A High Court can invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in two circumstances: (a) if any of the respondents reside within the territorial limit of the court, even if the cause of action has arisen wholly outside the jurisdiction; (b) if part of the cause of action arises within the state, even if none of the respondents reside within the territorial limit of the court. 2. The communication of an order of dismissal to an employee within a particular jurisdiction does not, by itself, give rise to a cause of action in that jurisdiction. The cause of action arises from the action complained of, not from the receipt of the communication.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court clarified that the rejection of the application would not prevent the petitioner from seeking relief before an appropriate forum.
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.
By this writ application a dismissed employee of the Border Security Force has challenged the order of dismissal which has since been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Director General, Border Security Force, a reviewing authority.
2. There is no dispute that all the respondents are staying outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and at the same time, the order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner when he was posted in Rajasthan.
3. In view of such fact, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has taken a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of this writ application on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ application.
4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted that although all the respondents are staying outside the territorial limit of this Court, the cause of action of the instant writ application has partly arisen within the jurisdiction of this court where the petitioner is actually staying. According to the petitioner, the order of the respondent/authority having been served upon him in the State of West Bengal and he having preferred the review application by sending his memorandum from the aforesaid State, this Court has territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the writ application.
5. The only question thus falls for preliminary determination is whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ application even if all the allegations made in the writ application are presumed to be true.
6. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the following decisions:
a) Raichand & Co. & Anr. vs. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors., reported in 1998 (1) CLJ425.
b) Union of India & Ors. vs. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited & Anr., reported in AIR 1983 Calcutta 307.
c) Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Banll & Ors. vs. Dilip Kumar De, reported in 1987 (1) CLJ 354.
d) Union of India & Ors. vs. P. Kunhabdulla, reported in 1984 (3) SLR 426 (Kerala).
e) Bharat Colling Coal Limited vs. Jlzaria Taillies & Cold Storage Private Limited, reported in 1992 (II) CHN 80.
7. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has, on the other hand, placed reliance upon the following decisions:
a) Union of India & Ors. vs. Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr., reported in AIR 2002 SC 126.
b) State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Swailw Properties & Anr., reported in AIR 1985 SC 1289.
c) Naill Nalwl Deb Singh vs. Deputy Commandant (CIS.F.) Kottayam & Ors., reported in 2000 Lab.I.C. 464 (Kerala Full Bench).
8. In the case of Raiclwnd & Co. & Anr. vs. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors. (supra), the writ petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of a statutory notification issued under a central statute having application throughout the country. The petitioner had its place of business within the jurisdiction of this Court. Under such circumstances, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that by virtue of the said Central statute the petitioner having suffered within the State of West Bengal, this Court had jurisdiction.
9. In the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. (supra), the impugned order fixing the selling price and the retention price of Aluminium was fixed by the Central Government at Delhi. However, although the petitioner had the factory located outside West Bengal, the Head Office was situated at Calcutta. The petitioner/company alleged that it suffered losses at Calcutta as direct consequence of the impugned order. Under such circumstances, it was held that part of cause of action had arisen at Calcutta and therefore, Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction.
10. In the case of Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Dilip Kumar De, (supra), a bank employee was 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
