IMPORTANT POINTS
" The issue raised in that case was whether the challenge to the nomination of members to the Dental Council of India, by the Government of India, would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction in Kerala
" The cause of action; if not whole, at least in part; arises in Kerala
" The appellant`s claim is for Disability Pension -The action of the respondents in having given him only invalid pension is illegal and unlawful-He was working in Shillong and that he was discharged from there; but it is asserted that he was forced to return to his home town in Kerala, after such discharge, since he had no financial resources to continue in Shillong- His request for Disability Pension was made from Kerala and it was rejected through Ext.P4, which was communicated to him in Kerala-If the request had been granted, then obviously the pension would also have been paid in Kerala, into a bank account or by such other mode as is known to law.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. Often, while addressing objections relating to territorial jurisdiction, Courts are caught in a dilemma if its natural endevour ought to be to strain to find a cause to establish jurisdiction or to reject claims out-right for ex-facie lack of such jurisdiction. The Court's quandary becomes exacerbated in matters impelled by litigants with limited financial resources or who are close to penury and therefore, unable to approach other High Courts or Forums.

2. This case before us certainly has caused this angst in us ; but we will not decide the issue edificed merely on sympathy and we proceed to examine if the writ petition, filed by the appellant herein, would obtain feet to stand in this Court or if it will have to be re-presented or filed in another High Court, as concluded by the learned Single Judge.

3. Stated pithly, the issue in question is whether the appellant, who worked in the Assam Rifles in Shillong and who was discharged from service on medical reasons, can file a writ petition seeking Disability Pension before this Court.

4. The learned Single Judge found the petitioner not to obtain locus in this Court and directed the Registry to return the writ petition to the appellant with the following short order :

"In view of my judgment in W.P.(C) No.13744 of 2018 the Registry is directed to return the writ petition for presenting the same before the appropriate forum."

5. The appellant asserts that the learned Judge has erred in doing so and we will presently assess if he is right or wrong in so asserting.

6. The appellant impugns the afore-extracted order, dated 29.6.2018, in W.P(C)No.21383/2017 wherein, as is luculent therefrom, the Registry of this Court has been directed to return the writ petition for being presented “before the appropriate forum”. The appellant submits that the learned Judge is in error in ordering so since, according to him, a writ petition can only be filed before this Court and not before any other Forum, including the Central Administrative Tribunal and that if, on the contrary, the view of the learned Judge is construed to be that it has to be filed before another High Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction the Assam Rifles is situated, then such view is also legally untenable because, the cause of action shown by him has arisen in Kerala.

7. We have heard Smt.Rekha Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.M.C.Mony, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.

8. We notice from the papers on record that the conclusion on jurisdiction ; or the lack of it, entered into by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, was so entered even without any objection being raised by the respondents either as to territorial jurisdiction of this Court or as to the jurisdiction being vested in another Forum. The learned Single Judge appears to have taken a view that the writ petition will have to be filed in an appropriate forum, thereby to mean that it is either before the CAT or before another High Court.

9. We notice that the claim of the appellant has been made against Assam Rifles and since we are told by both sides that it is not a notified establishment under the Administrative Tribunals Act, it may be safe for us to conclude that the writ petition cannot be filed before the CAT as an original application.

10. The only surviving question, therefore, is whether the appellant would obtain the locus to file this writ petition before this Court or whether he should be driven to the High Court at Meghalaya, where concededly he had worked and from where he had been discharged from.

11. Before we answer this, a quick glance to the essential facts may be necessary.

12. The appellant was recruited to Assam Rifles and he was enlisted on 2.7.1986 ; however, later invalidated from service, with effect from 31.10.1998, on medical grounds. He asserts that he was affected with Malignant Tertian Malaria in the year 1994 and that even t