IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present :-

The Hon’ble Justice Sujoy Paul

&

The Hon’ble Justice Smita Das De

MAT 135 of 2025

IA NO: CAN 2 of 2025

Sudhan Mondal

Vs.

Union Of India And Ors.

For the appellant : Mr. Ziaul Islam

Ms. Muskaan Chowdhury

For the Union of India : Mr. Partha Ghosh

Mr. Amal Kumar Datta

Heard on : 21.08.2025. Judgment on : 25.08.2025

SUJOY PAUL, J.:

1. In this intra court appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by learned Single Bench in WPA 12398 of 2023 whereby learned Single Judge opined that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of Calcutta High Court and, therefore,

petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the relevant facts are that the appellant was admittedly working as Head Constable with Border Security Force

at Jammu. He took leave to undergo surgery in West Bengal and came to his native place. Because of post-surgery problems, he had to overstay beyond the period for which leave was initially granted. This became reason for initiation of proceedings against the appellant by the competent authority at Jammu. Ultimately, it resulted with issuance of the impugned order dated 24th December, 2022 issued by Commandant, Paloura Camp, Jammu. This order was called in question before learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge opined that the appellant was admittedly working at Jammu, the proceedings were initiated against him at Jammu. He suffered the order 24th December, 2022 which was issued from Jammu and served on the appellant at Jammu. He unsuccessfully preferred an appeal from Jammu which was rejected at Jammu. Thus, in the opinion of learned Single Judge, no part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of this court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two fold submissions.

4. Firstly, it is submitted that while hearing the WPA 12398 of 2023 on 13.6.2023, the objection of territorial jurisdiction was raised by the other side. However, the said objection was not entertained and the court categorically held that it has territorial jurisdiction to receive, try and entertain the instant writ petition. This order, in absence of any challenge has attained finality. Thus, withstanding this order, it was no more open to the learned Single Judge to take a different view on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction. This argument was advanced despite the fact that by a subsequent order in the said WPA on 10.6.2024, the learned Single Judge opined that the question of jurisdiction remains open. Thus, it is argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in deciding the question of jurisdiction which runs contrary to its previous order dated 13.6.2023.

5. The second limb of argument is that even if a miniscule part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of this court, the court can entertain a petition in the teeth of Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. It is submitted that the word “cause of action” means the bundle of facts which are necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter. The judgment of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Others v. Kalyan Banerjee reported in (2008) 3 SCC 456 is relied upon on which learned Single Judge also placed reliance for rejecting the writ petition by contending that in para 11 of this judgment, the Supreme Court has considered its previous judgment in Om Prakash Srivastava. v. Union of India reported in (2006) 6 SCC 207 and considered meaning of expression “cause of action”. A conjoint reading of paras 11 and 12 of this judgment shows that a miniscule part of cause of action had arisen within the territory of this court because petitioner has undergone surgery in West Bengal and overstayed leave at West Bengal.

7. The next contention is based on the judgment of Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329. Refer