High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
CHANDRAHAS s/o KRISHNA NAMDEV – APPELLANT
Versus
Madhya Pradesh POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD., JABALPUR & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
W. P. No. 5400 of 2019
Decided On : 21-07-2022
Territorial Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ Petition - 1987 M.P.L.J. (F.B.) 396, (2014) 9 SCC 329, (2020) 10 SCC 766
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition based on territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order of punishment and the appellate order were communicated to the petitioner in district Barwah, and its consequences fell on the petitioner in the same district.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the respondents' objection regarding territorial jurisdiction and allowed the writ petition. It also granted the petitioner an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay before the appellate authority.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction, delay in filing the appeal, application for condonation of delay
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for constituting a cause of action, it is not only the place where the order is made, but also the place where the consequences fall on the person concerned. It also emphasized the importance of considering forum conveniences for retired employees receiving pension.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed and disposed of, and the petitioner was granted an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay before the appellate authority.
ORDER : – The respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present petition on the ground that this Bench has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. It is submitted that the order of punishment of stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect was passed at Khandwa which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at Jabalpur. It is further submitted that the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was decided at Jabalpur which is also within the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Bench at Jabalpur.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the impugned order of punishment was passed, he was posted at Barwah, Dist. Barwah which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench.
3. The impugned order of punishment was communicated by the respondents to him at Barwah. It is further submitted that the appellate order passed by the respondents at Jabalpur was also communicated to the petitioner at Barwah, Dist. Barwah and, therefore, part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has the jurisdiction. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of K. P. Govil vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, reported in 1987 M.P.L.J. (F.B.) 396 wherein the Full Bench has held as under : –
“Held, that the Writ Petition was maintainable before the Bench at Gwalior. The expression in the Presidential Notification dated 28-11-1968 “in respect of cases arising in the Revenue Districts of Gwalior, Shivpuri, Datia, Guna, Vidisha (Bhilsa), “Bhind and Morena” means the place or places within the specified revenue districts where the whole or a part of cause of action arises. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place of places within the specific revenue districts, the Gwalior Bench will have jurisdiction. The fact that the order of appointment was accepted by joining the post at Gwalior would form part of cause of action and it would arise at the place where the order is implemented by joining the post. A part of the cause of action having arisen at Gwalior, the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction to entertain petition.”
4. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held the petition to be maintainable. Considering the part cause of action arising at a particular place and as in para 17 is held 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 medically unfit, he returned back to his home in the District of Gaya, Bihar and, thereafter, he made all claims and filed representation from his home address at Gaya and those letters and representations were entertained by the respondents and replied and a decision on those representati
Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place where the order is made and where the consequences fall on the person concerned. Forum conveniences should be considered, especially for retired em....
A High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226(2) requires that part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Consti....
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.
High Court jurisdiction under Article 226(2) arises if even fraction of cause of action, like receipt of impugned order at residence within territory, occurs therein. No laches where authorities dela....
Territorial jurisdiction of the court is determined based on the material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action, and consent cannot confer jurisdiction upon the court.
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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.