G.S. SISTANI, J.

CRL M.A. No. 3651/2015 (under Section 482 CrPC)

1. This is an application under Section 482 filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2/State of Chhattisgarh for dismissal of the present writ petition on the ground that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.

2. The present writ has been filed impugning the orders of the President and the Governor of Chhattisgarh rejecting the mercy petition of the petitioner herein, inter-alia, on account of delay, non-application of mind, ingnorance of relevant considerations and without taking into account that the petitioner was kept in solitary confinement.

3. Brief background to the present controversy is thus, the petitioner had been accused of killing 5 persons at Village Cher, Baikunthpur District, Chhattisgarh on the intervening night of 26-27.11.2004. He was convicted by the Sessions Court at Koriya District, Chhattisgarh and sentenced to death. On an appeal filed, the High Court of Chhattisgarh confirmed the sentence of death and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein on 08.03.2010. On 23.02.2012, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed a mercy petition to the President on 09.04.2012. As per procedure, the petition was first sent to the Government of Chhattisgarh for placing the same before the Governor of Chhattisgarh under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The Governor rejected the mercy petition on 08.04.2013 and thereafter, the President also rejected the mercy petition on 05.05.2014. The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition on 10.02.2015. Aggrieved by the rejection of his mercy petition by the Governor of Chhattisgarh and the President of India, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. During the course of the present proceedings, on 05.09.2016, this court was informed that a petition seeking transfer [being Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 297/2016] had been filed before the Supreme Court of India by the respondent no. 2 and further proceedings in the present petition were stayed. Accordingly, the next date was cancelled and the matter was fixed for 16.11.2016. In the meanwhile, on 08.11.2016, the Supreme Court of India modified its previous order and directed this Court to decide the issue of maintainability within four weeks. The parties did not approach this court immediately to appraise this court about the order of the Supreme Court, but waited till 16.11.2016, the date fixed, to inform the Court. Even on the said date, the petitioner sought an adjournment; accordingly the matter was adjourned to 22.11.2016. It was only on 22.11.2016 that the arguments in the matter commenced; even though the Supreme Court had passed the order on 08.11.2016.

5. The submissions of the counsel for the respondent no. 2/applicant are on the following lines:

5.1. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to paragraph 43 of the petition to show that the petitioner has alleged the jurisdiction of this court on two grounds; first, that the respondent no. 1 is situated in Delhi and second, the cause of action also arises in Delhi. He has also drawn our attention to the order dated 02.03.2015 passed by this Court, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

“On the question whether a writ petition would be maintainable before the High Court as the punishment of death sentence stands confirmed on merits by the Supreme Court, reliance has been placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in Smt. Renuka vs. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) No. 3103/2014 dated 20.08.2014 and the decision of Allahabad High Court dated 28.01.2015 in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 57810/2014 People's Union For Democratic Rights and Others vs. Union of India with Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 23471/2014 in Surendra Koli vs. Union of India and Others. Our attention is also drawn on the earlier order passed in the same writ petition dated 3