Back
1987 Supreme(All) 425
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. C. AGRAWAL, R. K. GULATI
RAKESH DHAR TRIPATHI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 18048 Of 1987
Decided On : 10/14/1987
RAM NIVAS SINGH, V.K.CHANDEL
The territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is determined by the place where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises, and not by the residence of the petitioner or the location of the respondent.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - WRIT JURISDICTION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - CAUSE OF ACTION - NEHRU YUVA KENDRA SANGATHAN - APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR GENERAL - WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING APPOINTMENT - CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING OUTSIDE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - PETITION NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the appointment of the Director General of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, an autonomous society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on various grounds, including lack of authority and violation of procedures. The Sangathan was established by the Government of India to promote youth development and empowerment.
Finding of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the cause of action, wholly or in part, did not arise within its territorial limits. The Court noted that the grounds on which the petition was filed, including the appointment of the Director General and the alleged irregularities in the process, occurred in New Delhi, which was beyond the Court's territorial jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the Allahabad High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the appointment of the Director General of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan. 2. Whether the cause of action, or any part thereof, arose within the territorial limits of the Allahabad High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on Article 226(2) of the Constitution, which empowers High Courts to issue writs, orders, or directions to any Government, authority, or person within their territorial jurisdiction, even if the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. 2. The Court interpreted the term "cause of action" as every fact that the plaintiff must prove to succeed in the action, and held that it does not include the relief claimed or the residence of the petitioner. 3. The Court referred to several precedents, including State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties (AIR 1985 SC 1289), which established that the mere service of notice or the location of the petitioner's head office within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court does not confer jurisdiction if the cause of action arose elsewhere.
Final Decision: The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
( 1 ) THROUGH this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Rakesh Dhar Tripathi, amongst others, has sought : (i) Writ in the nature of quo-warranto directing Akhil Bakshi, respondent No. 3, to show the authority under which he is occupying the post of Director General of Nehru Yuva Sangthan, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi. (ii) Mandamus directing the Union of India to continue the Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan as the department of Union of India instead of establishing the Sangathan; and (iii) Direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Union of India and the Sangathan to make appointment of the Director General and other employees through Union Public Service Commission.
( 2 ) APART from the aforesaid three reliefs, some others have also been claimed.
( 3 ) ON 25th February, 1987, the Government of India, published a resolution of the Ministry of Human Resources, Development (Department of Youth Affairs and Sports) regarding establishment of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan. It is said :-"and Whereas Government are satisfied that this objective could best be achieved through the establishment of a well knit organisational structure with necessary resource and flexibility and for this purpose an autonomous society under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 would be the best agency".
( 4 ) IT was decided that Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, which had been registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, will be provided funds as grant-in-aid.
( 5 ) AKHIL Bakshi, respondent No. 3, was subsequently appointed by the Government of India as the Director General of the Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, New Delhi. It is this appointment made by the Union of India which led to the filing of the present petition. The petitioner has taken a number of grounds assailing his appointment. The following persons were also nominated as members of the Sangathan Society/board of Governers : 1. Smt. Vaijayanthi Mala Bali, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha. 2. Sri Aslam Ser, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha. 3. Sri D. P. Ray, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha. 4. Sri Aditi Mangal Das, Artist in Cultural Field.
( 6 ) THE point that first arises for decision by us is about the entertainment of this petition by the Allahabad High Court.
( 7 ) THE three respondents arrayed are : (i) Union of India. (ii) Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, New Delhi. (iii) Akhil Bakshi, Director General, Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, New Delhi. All of them are beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The question about the entertainment of the petition and granting of relief is to be decided on the basis of Art. 226 (2) of the Constitution. This Article reads :"the power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. "
( 8 ) ARTICLE 226 was amended by the Constitution (15th Amendment) Act 1963 whereby Cl. (1a) to Art. 226 (1) was incorporated and such incorporation enlarged the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in writ matters so as to include places within which the cause of action has arisen. Prior to the insertion of Cl. (1-A), it was held that the writs could not go beyond the territories in relation to which each High Court exercises K. S. Rashid and Sons v. Income-tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207. This was followed thereafter. Hence, a High Court could not issue a writ or order under Art. 226 unless the person, authority or Government against whom the writ is sought was physical resident or located within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao, AIR 1953 SC 21
