Territorial jurisdiction of the court is determined based on the material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action, and consent cannot confer jurisdiction upon the court.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from acting upon the order of dismissal dated 8th July, 1997 and the appellate order signed on 18th November, 2002 and for direction upon the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service as Naik (BSF) with full back wages.

2. Ms. Chandreyi Alam, learned advocate for the respondent authorities raises an objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. She submits that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and therefore, this Court should not try and decide this writ petition.

3. Mr. Samanta, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner disputes such submission by contending that on an earlier occasion, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. 4322(W) of 2000 praying for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 15th April, 1996 and this Hon’ble Court by an order dated 17th July, 2002 allowed the prayer of the writ petitioner to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority in accordance with law.

4. He submits that since on an earlier occasion, this Hon’ble Court granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal and pursuant to such liberty, the petitioner preferred the appeal and the order of the appellate authority is under challenge in this writ petition, it is not open to the respondent authorities to raise an objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition on the alleged ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, at this stage.

5. He further submits that he filed the appeal petition by registered post from his place of residence in the district of Nadia within the State of West Bengal and the appellate authority also communicated the final order at his residential address at Nadia. According to him, part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta for which this Court has jurisdiction to decide the writ petition.

6. In support of the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Samanta places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alchemist Ltd. and Another vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 335 and Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 329.

7. Since an objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court has been raised, this Court invited the learned advocates of the respective parties to advance their arguments with regard to the issue of jurisdiction only and the learned advocates for the respective parties have restricted their submissions only with regard to such issue.

8. Record reveals that the petitioner was attached with 162 Bn. Border Security Force at Phatik Chara, Tripura (West) and was charged under section 14(c), 40 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. It further appears from the record that the proceedings of the General Security Force Court trial of the petitioner was placed before the competent authority for confirmation of the findings and the sentence of the Court and by an order dated 8th July, 1997, the 4th respondent sentenced the petitioner attached with 16 Bn. BSF to dismissal from service. The order of confirmation was passed by an authority having its seat within the State of Tripura. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director General of Border Security Force having his office at New Delhi.

9. The Director General, BSF by an order signed on 18th November, 2002, bearing the order date 21.11.2002 after examining the plea of the petitioner during the personal hearing and the points raised by him and the relevant records, found no substance in his plea on the point raised in the petition warranting any interfere