Back
2022 Supreme(MP) 1246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Shital Singh Tomar – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2649 of 2015
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi - Advocate., for the Appellant; Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Government Advocate For State. Shri Arun Dudawat - Advocate For Respondent No. 3. Shri Mahesh Goyal - Advocate For Respondent No. 4., for the Respondent;
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is determined by the location of the cause of action.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 226 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief against the cancellation of his regularization order by the Collector, Dhar. The court considered the jurisdictional issue of where the cause of action arose.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cause of action did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, as the impugned orders were passed in Dhar, not Morena.
Issues: Jurisdictional issue of cause of action and territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Article 226 and previous case law to determine that the cause of action did not arise within the court's territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief:-
(i) That, order dt. 22-04-2015 (Annexure P/1) by which the resolution dt. 27-04-2013 has been suspended and the regularization of the petitioner has been cancelled, may kindly be quashed.
(ii) That, it may be held that the resolution no. 194 dt. 27-04-2013 is legal and valid and therefore the petitioner has been rightly regularized vide order dt. 29-04-2013.
(iii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits of the post of peon on regular basis.
(iv) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is aggrieved by order dated 22.04.2015 passed by the Collector, Dhar, by which the order of regularization dated 29.04.2013 was cancelled.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2005 he was appointed as daily wages employee in Municipal Council, Morena, where he worked till 2009. Thereafter, in the month of March, 2010, the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager in Municipal Council, Dhar. Since the post of peon was lying vacant in the Municipal Council, Dhar, therefore, by resolution No. 194 dt. 27.04.2013, PIC took a decision to regularize the services of the petitioner as well as other employees. Since the post meant for reserved category of handicapped quota, was also lying vacant and he was the only candidate to be regularized under the handicapped category therefore his regularization was proper. After the resolution dated 27.04.2013 was passed, an order dated 29.04.2013 was issued. After the services of the petitioner were regularized, he was transferred by the State Government by order dated 20.10.2014 from Municipal Council, Dhar to Municipal Council, Morena. However, by the impugned order dated 22.04.2015, his regularization order has been cancelled.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondents. It is submitted that the resolution dated 27.04.2013 was passed by the PIC, Dhar and the order dated 29.04.2013 was issued by the Municipal Council, Dhar. The order of regularization was cancelled by Collector, Dhar and, thus, the entire cause of action arose at Dhar. Merely because the order of Collector was communicated to the petitioner at Morena, it would not give rise to any part of cause of action and as no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.
5. Considered the submission made by counsel for the parties.
6. Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 not within those territories.
[(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an oppo
