IMPORTANT POINT
A High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226(2) requires that part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.

ORDER :

1. Heard on application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. Taking into consideration the short period of delay and cause shown in the application, despite objection, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application for condonation of delay is allowed.

3. With the consent of the parties, this appeal is heard finally.

4. The only issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that once the learned Single Judge observed that the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur had no territorial jurisdiction, it ought not to have decided the case on merits.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that as the appellant-petitioner himself had approached the Court, the learned Single Judge examined the merits of the case.

6. We have gone through the contents of the petition and the order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. Apparently, the appellant-petitioner was proceeded against and was terminated from service while he was posted at Nagaland. He preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority stationed at Patna, Bihar, who decided his appeal. Thereafter, revision petition against the order passed by the Appellate Authority was also filed stationed at Patna only. The revision petition was also dismissed.

8. A perusal of the pleadings made in the petition reflects that the appellant-petitioner was initially selected in the services of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 03.03.2003 and performed his basic training at Central Reserve Police Force Group Centre-II, Ajmer, Rajasthan whereafter, he was appointed as Constable (GD) CRPF. These facts, even if taken as correct, do not constitute the part of the cause of action.

9. This Court had an occasion to examine similar issue of territorial jurisdiction in the case of Unique Organics Limited Vs. Union of India and Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14226/2023) and has observed in Para 15 as under:

“15. The aforesaid principle was lucidly reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent judicial pronouncement in the case of State of Goa Vs. Summit Online Trade Solutions Private Limited & Others (supra). On facts, that was a case where notifications issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were under challenge. The Factual background of that case was noted by the Hon’ble Supreme as below:

“11. The High Court, while delivering the impugned judgment and order, proceeded to hold that the writ petitioners were aggrieved not only by the impugned notification issued by the appellant under the GGST Act but also by the act of the Central Government in issuing the impugned notifications under the CGST Act as well as the IGST Act seeking to levy tax (GST) on lotteries organised, promoted and conducted by the State of Sikkim. The High Court further noted that it was not the actual incidence of GST under the GGST Act which is impugned in the writ petitions but the provisions of law made by the Parliament as well as the respective State Governments including the State of Goa by which they sought to levy GST on lotteries. Considering the prayers made in the writ petition, the High Court was further of the view that, at least, a part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction. The High Court was also of the view that since notice had been issued on WP (C) Nos. 36 and 38 of 2017 on 17-7-2017, much before Rule was issued by the High Court of Bombay at Goa on 20-9-2017 in Serenity Trades (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2017 SCC Online Bom 10242, no ground had been set up by the appellant for deletion; hence, the interim applications seeking deletion stood dismissed.

12. In support of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain and try the writ petition, this is what the petitioning company has stated:

“29. That this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the said writ petition as the cause of action arises in Sikkim only. Both the petitioner and