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 Constitution and jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution was exercisable throughout territories in relation to which High Court exercised jurisdiction, meaning thereby that Writs issued by Court could not run beyond territories subject to its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Through the instant petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner has sought the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order No. Estt/SSFC-51Bn/90Bn/09/1064999 dated 05.06.2009 issued by respondent No.3 and order dated 19th July, 2010 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner has questioned order dated 05.06.2009 issued by Commandant, 90 Battalion BSF by which punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him, inter alia, on the ground that respondent No.3, while passing the order of dismissal from service, has not followed the provisions of Rule 45 of Border Security Force Rules of 1969. The order dated 19th July, 2010 passed by respondent No.2 in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner upholding the order dated 05.06.2009 has also been questioned on the ground that the appellate authority i.e. respondent No.2 herein while rejecting his statutory appeal filed under Section 117(2) of BSF Act did not grant any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which was necessary in this case and, therefore, the order passed by respondent No.2 in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner is illegal being violative of principles of natural justice.

2. Mr. Rohan Nanda learned CGSC representing the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition. It is claimed that since no cause of action or part thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, as such, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. He submits that the orders impugned have been passed by the authorities located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that merely because the order passed by respondent No.2 in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was communicated to him within the territorial jurisdiction of UT of Jammu and Kashmir does not mean that a part of action has accrued in the Union Territory of J&K which is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition, I am of the considered view that the objection raised by the learned CGSC has merit and must sustain.

4. The Court of Inquiry was ordered by respondent No.3 with regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner when the petitioner was attached with 90 Bn BSF, Roshanbagh, West Bengal. The Court of Inquiry was held in the Sector Headquarter Bn BSF Roshanbagh Murshidabad, West Bengal. Therefore, merely, communicating the order passed by respondent No.2 in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner at Jammu or filing of appeal by petitioner from Jammu does not mean that a part of cause of action has accrued in the Union Territory of J&K.

5. The issue which begs determination in this case is, as to whether conveying the order impugned to the petitioner at Jammu can be tantamount to accrual of cause of action or part thereof within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

6. The issue of territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been subject matter of debate in several cases that have come before various High Courts including this Court. In some cases, the matter has landed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well. Prior to the Constitutional (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, the concept of cause of action was alien for adjudication of disputes by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was exercisable throughout the territories in relation to which the High Court exercised jurisdiction, meaning thereby that Writs issued by the Court could not run beyond the territories subject to its