The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish territorial jurisdiction for maintaining a writ petition, based on the principles of cause of action and the location of relevant events.

JUDGMENT :

M.V. Muralidaran, J.:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent Union of India and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent State.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the impugned order passed by the Commandant 142 Bn BSF, Jalipa, Harmet (Rajasthan) dated 2.3.2022 thereby ordering to retire the petitioner from service with admissible pensionary benefits, if any, which was affirmed by the Inspector General, FTR HQ (SPL OPS) BSF, Odisha dated 7.6.2023.

3. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 8.1.2024, the learned Deputy Solicitor General has challenged the maintainability of the writ petition before the Calcutta High Court on the ground that as against the order passed by the Commandant, 142 Bn, Rajasthan dated 2.3.2022, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition is very well maintainable before this Court though the original order was passed in Rajasthan. The learned counsel further submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioner as against the order dated 2.3.2022 was issued by the appellate authority in the State of Odisha.

5. This Court heard the submissions of the respective counsel for the respondents on the question of maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta.

6. The petitioner joined in the service of Border Security Force in Battalion No.142 BSF. The Commandant, 142 Bn BSF, Jalipa, Rajasthan, having been satisfied that the petitioner has entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of the first wife, declared the petitioner unsuitable to continue as a member of the Force in terms of Rule 21(2) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and, accordingly, ordered to retire the petitioner from service with admissible pensionary benefits vide order dated 2.3.2022.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2022, the petitioner has preferred appeal petition under Rule 28A of BSF Rules, 1969 before the Inspector General of BSF, Gujarat Frontier, Gujarat. The said appeal was heard by the Inspector General, FTR HQ (SPL OPS) BSF, Odisha and, by the order dated 7.6.2023, the appeal petition was rejected holding that the case of the petitioner has no substance as his retirement order was issued after following due procedure and in accordance with instructions on the subject. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

8. The learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India has raised a preliminary objection as regards the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present writ petition. In support, the learned Deputy Solicitor General relied upon the following orders of this Court:

(i) W.P.A.No.1014 of 2021, dated 5.1.2022 [Bhabhesh Chandra Barman v. Union of India and others)

(ii) MAT 6 of 2020 CAN 2 of 2020, dated 8.6.2023 [Bapi Biswas v. Union of India and others]

8. This Court is inclined to uphold such objection raised by the learned Deputy Solicitor General for the reason that the original order dated 2.3.2022 has been passed by the Commandant, 142 Bn, BSF, which is in the State of Rajasthan and the appeal preferred against the said order was considered and rejected by the Inspector General, FTR, HQ (SPL OPS) BSF, Odisha.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition challenging the aforesaid two orders is very well maintainable before this Court. In support, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff, 2002 SCC (CRI) 1083 and NawalKishor Sharma v. Union of India, 2014 AIR SCW 4713.

10. This Court is unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitio