Back
2015 Supreme(J&K) 384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
N. Paul Vasantha Kumar and Dhiraj Singh Thakur, JJ.
Manzoor Ahmad Shiekh – Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. – Respondent
LPA No. 178/2014 and CMP No. 280/2014
Decided On : 01-06-2015
For the Appellant :M.A. Qayoom, Advocate
For the Respondents: S.A. Makroo, A.S.G.I.
Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the presence of essential, integral, or material facts within the jurisdiction, and mere communication or service of documents at a particular location does not automatically confer jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Territorial Jurisdiction - Border Security Force Act - Section 61, Section 62 - Jurisdiction of Court - Show cause notice and apprehension roll served at different locations - No cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Border Security Force member, challenged his dismissal and subsequent rejection of representation in a writ petition. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the show cause notice and apprehension roll were served at different locations, and no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction of the Court in relation to service of show cause notice and apprehension roll
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that for a cause of action to arise within the territorial jurisdiction, essential, integral, or material facts must be present within that jurisdiction. Mere communication or service of documents at a particular location does not automatically confer jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The LP Appeal was dismissed, and the connected CMP was also dismissed. No costs were awarded.
N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J.
1. This LP Appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge made in S.W.P. No. 07 of 2009 dated 26.08.2014 wherein the appellant challenged order dated 05.12.2000 as well as order dated 25.06.2009 and for direction to the respondents to re-instate the appellant with all consequential benefits. The said writ petition was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that he was enrolled in the Border Security Force in 1997 and after completing the basic training was assigned registration No. 98000112. The appellant was posted in 102 Bn, BSF and he served at various places when said Battalion moved from one place to another. On 04.08.2000, while the appellant was serving in West Bengal, due to his illness he applied for leave and he was permitted to leave the station and he visited his native place at Anantnag for getting medical treatment. According to the appellant he consulted the Doctors for getting treatment for his mental ailment and he was admitted in State Mental Hospital & Surgery, Rainawari from 10.08.2000 to 04.01.2001. When the appellant approached for resumption of his duties, he was not permitted to join and he was handed over the order of dismissal dated 05.12.2000. According to the appellant he filed appeal/representation/review against the said order through proper channel under Rule 167 of the Border Security Rules. It is alleged that his first representation was dated 16.01.2001 followed with representations dated 16.03.2001, 17.11.2001, 17.11.2007 and 10.03.2008 and ultimately his representation was rejected on 25.06.2009. The said order dated 25.06.2009 rejecting his representation and the order of dismissal dated 05.12.2000 were challenged by the appellant before this Court in SWP No. 07/2009.
2. In the said writ petition counter affidavit was filed by the respondents, questioning the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the dismissal order has been passed at Malda, West Bengal and the said order could be challenged before the Court within the territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata High Court.
3. Mr. M.A. Qayoom, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the show cause notice was served to the appellant at Dialgam, Anantnag, the order rejecting his representation was communicated to him at Anantnag, and the Apprehension Roll having been sent to District Magistrate, Anantnag, therefore, this Court has got the jurisdiction. The learned counsel also contended that the order rejecting his representation/review having been passed at Delhi, the writ petition challenging the said order before this Court is maintainable. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2001) 9 SCC 525 (Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff and anr) in support of his contention that the writ petition before this Court is maintainable.
4. The said stand was opposed by Mr. S.A. Makroo, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents by contending that no cause of action or any part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court to maintain the writ petition. Learned counsel also submitted that mere service of show cause notice or order of rejection of the appeal of the appellant which was filed belatedly, will not give any cause of action to file the writ petition before this Court. The learned counsel also cited several decisions in support of his contention. The learned counsel ultimately submitted that the appellant can either maintain his writ petition, if he has got any right to agitate, only before the Kolkata High Court or before Delhi High Court where the appellate authority has passed the order rejecting his appeal and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and the judgments relied upon by the respective counsels.
6. It is a fact that the appellant was enrolled in the Bo
