The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere communication of correspondence and orders does not give rise to a cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this order the Court is deciding preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction. The pleadings are exchanged. In the pleadings neither the petitioner nor respondents have raised plea for and against the territorial jurisdiction. However, counsel for parties have vehemently argued on the issue, therefore, the present order is being passed.

2. Petitioner has declared his residential address of District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh whereas the impugned orders dated 27.02.1996 and 08.02.2014 are passed by Respondent-4, Commandant, 21st Battalion, Indo Tibetan Border Police, Srinagar (Jammu & Kashmir) and Respondent-2, Director General of Indo Tibetan Border Police, North-West Zone, Office of Ministry of Home, New Delhi, respectively.

3. Petitioner has also declared that he was posted as Constable/ Barber at 19th Battalion Indo Tibetan Border Police at Srinagar and was transferred to 21st Battalion, Indo Tibetan Border Police at Leh vide order dated 18.07.1994. However petitioner failed to join at Leh, therefore, proceedings were initiated against him for “desertion of service” and by impugned order dated 27.02.1996 petitioner was removed from service. Thereafter a belated appeal was filed before President of India, which was forwarded to Respondent-4, however, it was also rejected by means of impugned order dated 08.02.2014.

4. Ms. Suchita Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, urged that, petitioner is a permanent resident of District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. During inquiry all correspondences were send to his residential address at Bijnor, therefore, partial cause of action arose at Uttar Pradesh also. The writ petition is pending since 2017 and pleadings are exchanged, therefore, at this stage, equity also favours petitioner. Learned counsel has relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 9 SCC 329 and read out paras 9, 16 and 17 of the judgment, which are reproduced as under:

“9. The interpretation given by this Court in the aforesaid decisions resulted in undue hardship and inconvenience to the citizens to invoke writ jurisdiction. As a result, Clause 1(A) was inserted in Article 226 by the Constitution (15th) Amendment Act, 1963 and subsequently renumbered as Clause (2) by the Constitution (42nd) Amendment Act, 1976. The amended Clause (2) now reads as under:

226. Power of the 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 not within those territories.

(3) …….

(4) …….

On a plain reading of the amended provisions in Clause (2), it is clear that now High Court can issue a writ when the person or the authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the court's territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, for all intent and purpose must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged Under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression cause of action has not been defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Constitution. Cause of