Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, JJ.
Selvin Abraham – Petitioner
Versus
Punjab and Sind Bank, New Delhi – Respondent
O.P. No. 25142 of 1998
Decided On : 02-04-2024
Territorial Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court considered the territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench held that the original petition is maintainable as part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the court. The Full Bench overruled the Division Bench judgment, leading to a conflict. The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave to Appeal, holding that they were not inclined to entertain the petition in view of the Full Bench's decision. The court concluded that the original petition is maintainable in this Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bank officer, was dismissed from service in Coimbatore. The issue of territorial jurisdiction was raised by the respondent bank, leading to conflicting judgments by the Single Judge, Division Bench, and Full Bench of the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original petition is maintainable in this Court, despite the conflicting judgments and the Full Bench's decision overruling the Division Bench judgment.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the original petition is maintainable in this Court, and the Full Bench's decision overruling the Division Bench judgment does not affect the finality of the inter partes judgment.
Final Decision: The court ordered the Registry to place the files before the learned Single Judge for disposing of the Original Petition on its merits, as the Original Petition is maintainable in this Court.
1. This Original Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came up before us as per Reference Order dated 07.01.2016 of the learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. The limited facts necessary for answering the reference alone are stated here, as we do not intend to consider the matter on merits.
3. Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Management Grade Scale I Officer in the 1st respondent Bank and later was promoted to Assistant Manager. While the petitioner had been working as Assistant Manager at the Coimbatore Branch of the 1st respondent, he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 dated 27.7.1993. A punishment of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner as per Ext.P13 order of the 4th respondent dated 13.06.1995. The Appellate Authority confirmed Ext.P13 order by Ext.P16 Order dated 15.7.1996. The Reviewing Authority of the 1st respondent considered the matter and confirmed the penalty against the petitioner as per Ext.P20 Order dated 12.11.1998. The petitioner filed the present Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Exts.P1, P13, P16 and P20 orders and seeking a direction to reinstate him in service with all past benefits, as if he had been in continuous service and promotions, if any.
4. The 1st respondent bank raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Original Petition on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction for this Court to entertain the Original Petition. They contended that all disciplinary proceedings concerning the petitioner were taken outside the jurisdiction of this Court, and no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the state of Kerala. Petitioner defended this contention, contending that although he was employed in Coimbatore during the relevant time, he received Ext.P13 order of dismissal from service at his last known address at Kottayam, Kerala and thus part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. He further contended that the order of dismissal would only be complete when the same is communicated to him. Thus, the order of dismissal is complete in Kottayam. He relied on Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, that if the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court the said Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. According to him, in the case, part of the cause of action i.e. completion of the order of dismissal took place in Kottayam within the jurisdiction of this court.
5. The Learned Single Judge of this Court considered the question of want of territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the Original Petition and passed judgment dated 04.04.2006, dismissing the Original Petition as not maintainable. The judgment held that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court followed the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Naik Nakul Deo Singh vs. The Deputy Commandant, CISF, Kottayam, 1999 (3) KLT 629. The Full Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the cause of action does not arise in the place of service of the order of dismissal by the disciplinary authority for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.
6. The judgment dated 04.04.2006 of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Appeal No. 1549/2006. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said Writ Appeal as per judgment dated 28.06.2013, setting aside the judgment dated 04.04.2006 of the learned Single Judge. It is held that the Original petition is maintainable as part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court remitted the matter back to the Single Judge for disposing of the Original Petition on its merits. The said Division Bench judgment is reported as Selvin Abraham vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and Others, 2013 (3) KLT 481.
7. The Division
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Consti....
Point of Law : Territorial jurisdiction - Prior to Constitutional (Fifteenth Amendment Act, 1963, concept of cause of action was alien for adjudication of disputes by High Court under Article 226 of ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India.
A High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226(2) requires that part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.
High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 is contingent upon the presence of a cause of action within its territorial limits, as clarified by recent rulings.
The judgment emphasized the need for clarifying the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) in relation to challenges against orders passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench,....
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
