SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Del) 1178

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, G.C.MITTAL
MANOHAR LAL – Appellant
Versus
UOI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Punkaj Vivek, Sameer Aggarwal

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition a preliminary objection is raised by the respondents contending, inter alia, that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court. In support of the said preliminary objection raised by the respondents, it was pointed out that what is challenged in the present writ petition is the order passed by the Commandant on 27th May, 2000 awarding to the petitioner the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an appeal before his Appellate Authority, namely, the Deputy Inspector general of Police, Central Reserve Police Force. The said appeal was considered and disposed of by the Appellate Authority located in Allahabad, U. P. by issuing an order from Allahabad, UP which is dated 5th December, 2000. The petitioner could have filed a revision petition as against the aforesaid order but the said revisional remedy has not been invoked by the petitioner. It is pointed out that even the revisional authority is located at Lucknow.

( 2 ) IN the context of the aforesaid










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top