Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Geeta Sinha - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (C) 9089/2021 & CM Appl. 28284/2021
Decided On : 26-08-2021
Territorial Jurisdiction - Railway Board - Court held that the mere presence of the appointing authority in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction on the court when the impugned order and cause of action did not arise in Delhi.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a letter issued by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Danapur, Patna, contending that the court had territorial jurisdiction due to the appointing authority being the Railway Board in Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the presence of the appointing authority in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction on the court, as the impugned order and cause of action did not arise in Delhi. The petitioner was directed to seek remedies in a court with appropriate jurisdiction.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction of the court in relation to the appointing authority's location and the cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's jurisdiction is not determined solely by the location of the appointing authority, especially when the impugned order and cause of action do not arise in that location.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to seek remedies in a court with appropriate jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.:-- (Oral)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns letter dated 02.02.2021 issued by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Danapur, Patna.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the appointing authority of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager is the Railway Board and Railway Board is situated in Delhi, this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
4. He further submits that in similar circumstances the Supreme Court of India has entertained several writ petitions and passed orders granting benefit to various license holders across the country.
5. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in as much as merely because the Railway Board which is the appointing authority of the officer who has passed the impugned order is situated in Delhi would not confer jurisdiction on this Court especially when neither the authority whose order is impugned is situated in Delhi nor any part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi.
6. The factum of Supreme Court entertaining Writ Petitions of several vendors situated across the country would also not confer jurisdiction on this court.
7. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, whose order is impugned does not have a seat in Delhi and no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi.
8. Further the contention that a 2010 policy has been issued by the Railway Board and petitioner is seeking benefit under the policy also does not further the case of the petitioner in as much as petitioner is not aggrieved by any action of the Railway Board rather seeks implementation of the policy by the concerned authority which is situated at Danapur, Patna.
9. In view of the above, it is held that this petition would not lie before this court. Petitioner would have to avail of her remedies in an appropriate court having jurisdiction.
10. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
11. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
Territorial jurisdiction of the court is not solely determined by the location of the appointing authority, but also by the location of the impugned order and cause of action.
Jurisdiction over writ petitions is properly determined by the location of the authority issuing the order and the cause of action, not by the location of the appointing authority.
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
High Courts' jurisdiction under Article 226 is contingent on cause of action arising within its territory, not merely on the location of the authority or relevant government.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location of the cause of action, and internal correspondence between zonal offices a....
A High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226(2) requires that part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.
Parties may restrict jurisdiction to a designated court by agreement, provided that court holds jurisdiction over the matter.
The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is determined by statutory provisions, which cannot be overridden by conditions in recruitment advertisements, ensuring citizens' rights to see....
Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place where the order is made and where the consequences fall on the person concerned. Forum conveniences should be considered, especially for retired em....
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
