Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.
T. Jacob, S/o. Late Mr. Thanu - Appellant
Versus
Inspector General of Police (Personal) & Ors. - Respondents
WA No. 449 of 2022
Decided On : 06-04-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226(2) - Service matter - Transfer order - Territorial jurisdiction - “Cause of Action” - Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate claim raised by appellant - Learned Single Judge after considering rival contentions of parties held that cause of action in present case is rejection of request for transfer and impact of order is appellant's retention at Belgaum and that his aspiration of being transferred to Kerala will not give rise to cause of action and therefore above writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. But learned Single Judge reserved appellant's right to approach appropriate court. It is feeling aggrieved by judgment of learned Single Judge that present writ appeal is filed - This is a case where principle of forum conveniens is squarely applicable, even if we assume that a minor part of cause of action may have arisen in State of Kerala. This is so, as predominant and substantial part of cause of action has undisputably arisen outside limits of State of Kerala. (Para 10)
Finding of the Court :
Since appellant's choice for transfer posting is Kerala, he can only be presumed that the cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Kerala and therefore, said High Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain his grievances. Court have gone through those judgments relied on by petitioner and found that facts in those cases decided are totally different from facts of this case and furthermore, all those cases were ultimately decided against petitioners therein. Probably appellant might have relied on said judgments only to substantiate his claim that crux of issue of territorial jurisdiction is territories in which cause of action, wholly or in part, arises in the exercise of such power, and therefore choice of transfer of appellant being to a station within territorial limits of the High Court of Kerala, said court has jurisdiction to entertain claim. Even going by averments in writ petition, it is to be seen that cause of action for filing above writ petition is in fact rejection of requests for transfer. As predominant and substantial part of cause of action has undisputably arisen outside limits of State of Kerala.
Result : Writ appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Viju Abraham, J.
The above writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.27588 of 2021 aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 01.04.2022 whereby the writ petition filed by him was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the above writ appeal are as follows: Appellant/petitioner has been working in the Office of the IGP, CSJWT, CRPF, Belgaum since 16.06.2015. The appellant is due to retire from service with effect from 31.10.2024. He submitted Ext.P1 application before the 1st respondent seeking for a transfer to Group Centre, CRPF, Pallipuram being his terminal posting. By Ext.P2 the application submitted by the appellant was recommended by the IGP, SCJWT, CRPF, Belgaum. The Office of the 1st respondent also considered Ext.P1 submitted by the appellant and recommended his transfer to Group Centre, CRPF, Pallipuram as per Ext.P3 communication. In the meanwhile, there was delay in issuance of transfer order due to Covid-19 pandemic, the appellant again made a request seeking a transfer to his home State which was also recommended by the DIGP, CSJWT, CRPF, Belgaum as per Ext.P6. While so, Ext.P7 transfer order was published by the Office of the 3rd respondent whereby the appellant was transferred to 33 Bn, which is now based in Jammu & Kashmir. On issuance of Ext.P7 the appellant again represented before the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P8. Thereafter by Ext.P9, DIGP, CSJWT, Belgaum again recommended the case of the petitioner. Thereupon the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P10 whereby the request of the appellant was rejected as he is not eligible for a static posting and also due to non-availability of vacancy at the requested place. On receipt of Ext.P10, appellant again represented before the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P11 to reconsider his case. It is aggrieved by the issuance of Exts.P7 and P10 orders that the appellant has approached this Court filing the above writ petition.
3. A statement was filed on behalf of the respondents in which a preliminary objection was raised regarding the lack of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the appellant is still serving as Inspector, CRPF, Belgaum (Karnataka) and no part of the cause of action has occurred inside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. To fortify their contentions, the respondents relied on the judgment of this Court in Indian Maritime University v. Viswanathan [2014 (4) KLT 798 (FB)], Anand Anoop v. Union of India [2014 (3) KLT 171] and Dental Council of India v. Viswanath [2018 (3) KLT 255 (FB)]. Based on the above averments, the respondents pray for an order dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable. The respondents have also answered in the said statement to the various averments raised by the appellant in the writ petition.
4. A reply affidavit was filed by the appellant/writ petitioner mainly contending that the writ petition is perfectly maintainable before this Court in as much as the reliefs sought for in the writ petition are to be implemented in the State of Kerala and therefore the cause of action falls solely in Kerala and not in any other State even though administrative orders may have to be issued by the appropriate authorities who may be placed in other States.
5. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties held that the cause of action in the present case is rejection of the request for transfer and the impact of the order is the appellant's retention at Belgaum and that his aspiration of being transferred to Kerala will not give rise to the cause of action and therefore the above writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. But the learned Single Judge reserved the appellant's right to approach the appropriate court. It is feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the present writ appeal is filed.
6. In the appeal it is contended by the appellant that the word
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
