The cause of action determines the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining a petition.

TARUN AGARWALA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps and at the relevant moment of time, was posted at Jodhpur where he was prosecuted and tried for accepting illegal gratification from one Karan Singh. The petitioner was tried by a summary Court Martial between the period 1. 8. 1998 to 5. 8. 1998, whereupon, he was found guilty and a punishment of rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service was awarded, The petitioner thereafter, filed a petition under Section 164[2] of the Army Act 1950, which was rejected by an order dated 27. 1. 2000 passed by the Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs :

[i] to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in Colour Service till he completed his minimum pensionable service ; [ii] to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari summoning the records of his Summary Court Martial proceedings including all its connected documents and total result of the SCM proceedings, including the rejection order by the respondent No. 1 dated 27. 1. 2000 and quash the same with all the consequential benefits to the petitioner.

( 2 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition, inasmuch as no cause of action arose in the State of u. P. and therefore, "no writ could be issued by this Court. It was contended that the petitioner was posted at Jodhpur, the incident occurred at Jodhpur and that the Court Martial proceedings were also conducted at Jodhpur and that the order of dismissal and punishment of rigorous imprisonment was passed at Jodhpur and that the copy of the order of dismissal as well as the entire proceedings of the Summary Court Martial were served upon the petitioner at Jodhpur and therefore, no cause of action or part of cause of action arose in the state of U. P.

( 3 ) HEARD Colonel Ashok Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kamlesh Narain pandey, the learned Counsel for the respondents.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of dismissal and the proceedings of the Summary Court Martial was served upon the petitioner through his Counsel at Allahabad and that the statutory petition under Section 164 was transmitted from Allahabad to the respondents and therefore, a small part of the cause of action arose in the State of U. P. which was sufficient for the petitioner to file a writ petition before this Court. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Chief of the Army Staff could be sued anywhere in the country, as held by the Supreme Court and, therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to decide the matter.

( 5 ) IN order to consider as to whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to decide this matter, it would be appropriate to consider the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of india which reads as under : 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs[ 1] Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

[2] 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 no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document