The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the cause of action to wholly or in part arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in order to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner is an eminent Scientist, who worked in the Department of Space from its very inception in the year 1972 and headed the Indian Space Research Organisation [for brevity “ISRO”] as its Chairman for about half-a-dozen years. The petitioner has been honoured with doctorates by Universities and decorated by the Country itself. The petitioner challenges Exhibits P1, P2 and P3 orders which so to say, placed him in the dock and blacklisted him from any Governmental engagement. The issue assumes poignancy, since the Space programme is the most prestigious initiative in any developing or developed country of today’s world; for reasons of the significant ramification it has on the defence of the Country and the tantalizing temptation it offers in unravelling the secrets of the beyond; often termed as the next frontier of mankind. The report at Exhibit P1 and the orders at Exhibits P2 and P3 are issued on the ground that an agreement entered into with a private company has been done in such manner as to cast a shadow on the post the petitioner occupied, which directly reflects on his persona and credibility.

2. The Central Government has filed a detailed counter affidavit; but, however, demurred through the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Sri.G.Rajagopalan, insofar as conceding to the jurisdiction of this Court, since no part of the cause of action arose within the State. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, however, sought to sustain the writ petition before this Court itself; on the words employed in Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and the binding precedents on this point. This Court heard both learned Counsel on the issue of maintainability and reserved the issue for consideration. For the present, this Court is saved from looking into the unpleasant facts, for reason of the parties having consented to the question of maintainability being answered first. It goes without saying, that, if the answer is against the petitioner, the writ petition would stand dismissed and if it is held in his favour, the matter would have to be heard fully.

3. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.10.2009 as Chairman of ISRO and was, thereafter, awarded the position of Vikram Sarabhai Distinguished Professor in the Department of Space/ISRO as per Exhibit P4 for a period of four years. The same stood terminated by Exhibit P3. The Professorship was awarded by the Department of Space, Government of India from its office at Bangalore, within the State of Karnataka, and the tenure was to be spent in Bangalore itself, from where the termination too was effected. Exhibit P2 was the direct cause of Exhibit P3, since the Department of Space, considering the report of the Committees, which examined the controversial agreement entered into, directed that the four officers, one of whom being the petitioner, be divested of any current assignment/consultancy and they be excluded from re-employment, inclusion in Committees and any other important role under the Government. Exhibit P1 is the report based on which Exhibit P2 has been issued. The petitioner would contend that the petitioner was never issued with Exhibit P1 or P2 and that the same were available in the website of the Department, which he happened to be confronted with, at his residence at Thiruvananthapuram, to which place he had retired after being divested of the Professorship. The petitioner being a native of the State of Kerala and having his permanent residence at Kerala, is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, is the contention.

4. The legal question of maintainability alone arising preliminarily for consideration, this Court would first look into the precedents placed on record by the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532 and Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 3