Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Anjani Kumar Mishra, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Manish Kumar Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
WRIT A No. 2071, 2073-2075 of 2017, 5634 of 2011, Special Appeal No. – 22, 23 of 2019
Decided On : 01-05-2020
CRPF Act, 1949 – Section 11 – Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 – Rule 27 – Cause of action – Dismissal order – Jurisdiction – Larger Bench has been constituted under orders of Chief Justice on a reference made by Single Judge vide judgment and order – In writ petitions challenging dismissal order and order passed by appellate and revisional authority under provisions of 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, a preliminary objection was raised with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court – It was argued that no cause of action or part of cause of action has accrued to petitioners within State of U.P. and merely because appellate and revisional order had been communicated to them at their respective home districts in State of Uttar Pradesh, same would not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain writ petitions – Held, In support of their contention the respondents have relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (1) UPLBEC 108 as well as a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 342 of 2010 The Director General CRPF, New Delhi Vs. Constable Lalji Pandey The Division Bench in Lalji Pandey (supra) has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra (supra) and held that mere communication of the order of dismissal, appellate and revisional orders at the residential address of the respondents (therein) at district Bhadohi would not confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court. Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment reads as under :– Order Accordingly (Paras 28, 30, 31).
Fact of the Case:
In support of their contention the respondents have relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (1) UPLBEC 108 as well as a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 342 of 2010 The Director General CRPF, New Delhi Vs. Constable Lalji Pandey The Division Bench in Lalji Pandey (supra) has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra (supra) and held that mere communication of the order of dismissal, appellate and revisional orders at the residential address of the respondents (therein) at district Bhadohi would not confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court.
Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment reads as under :
Finding of the Court:
In support of their contention the respondents have relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (1) UPLBEC 108 as well as a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 342 of 2010 The Director General CRPF, New Delhi Vs. Constable Lalji Pandey The Division Bench in Lalji Pandey (supra) has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra (supra) and held that mere communication of the order of dismissal, appellate and revisional orders at the residential address of the respondents (therein) at district Bhadohi would not confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court.
Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment reads as under :
Result: Order Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amrish Chaterjee, Sri D.K. Mishra and Ms. Atipriya Gautam, learned advocates for the petitioners and Sri Satish Kumar Rai, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sri Nand Lal, Sri Raghuraj Kishore Mishra and Sri Purnendu Kumar Singh, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This Larger Bench has been constituted under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice on a reference made by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 25th January, 2017. In the writ petitions challenging the dismissal order and the order passed by the appellate and the revisional authority under the provisions of 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, a preliminary objection was raised with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It was argued that no cause of action or part of cause of action has accrued to the petitioners within the State of U.P. and merely because the appellate and the revisional order had been communicated to them at their respective home districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, same would not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the writ petitions.
3. The submission was that since the dismissal order has been passed by the Commandant, 129th Battalion, CRPF at Bhotgaon, Kokarajhar, Assam and was communicated to the petitioners there itself and further that the departmental appeal and revision have been rejected by the competent authorities at Bhopal, the remedy before the petitioners is to either approach the Gauhati High Court or Jabalpur High Court, whichever they choose. The writ petitions challenging the dismissal, appellate and revisional orders cannot be maintained in this Court.
4. The learned Single Judge in the referral order noted the arguments of Advocates for both sides in the following words : -
Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment reads as under :
"17. We have perused the facts pleaded in the writ petition and the documents relied upon by the appellant. Indisputably, the appellant reported sickness on account of various ailments including difficulty in breathing. He was referred to hospital. Consequently, he was signed off for further medical treatment. Finally, the respondent permanently declared the appellant unfit for sea service due to dilated cardiomyopathy (heart muscles disease). As a result, the Shipping Department of the Government of India issued an order on 12.4.2011 cancelling the registration of the appellant as a seaman. A copy of the letter was sent to the appellant at his native place in Bihar where he was staying after he was found medically unfit. It further appears that the appellant sent a representation from his home in the State of Bihar to the respondent claiming disability compensation. The said representation was replied by the respondent, which was addressed to him on his home address in Gaya, Bihar rejecting his claim for disability compensation. It is further evident that when the appellant was signed off and declared
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
