SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M.MANOJ, J
VISHNU V. – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 14241 OF 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
For the Respondents: SMT.MINI GOPINATH

The High Court will not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 when the cause of action arises outside its territory.

Headnote:The judgment concerns the writ petition challenging the termination of service as per Ext.P1. The petitioner contended dismissal of appeal Ext.P2 and sought consideration of a revision with jurisdiction issues due to the event arising in Maharashtra. The court found no reason to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 due to the lack of local cause of action. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction concerns regarding service termination petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. no jurisdiction under article 226 for external causes. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of March, 2026 The writ petition is preferred by the petitioner, challenging the termination from service as per Ext.P1, against which the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the

3rd respondent, which was also dismissed as per Ext.P3. 2. It is contended that the petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition before the Ministry and filed the present writ petition seeking consideration of the said revision petition. It is further submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondent that the entire issue pertains to the appointment to the CRPF, and that the date of selection was 04.04.2017. The petitioner deserted the training programme after the selection.

3. By Ext.P1, the 4th respondent, which is the authority within the State of Maharashtra, terminated the petitioner’s service. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same before the 3rd respondent, who also rejected the appeal. These are the circumstances under which the petitioner preferred a revision before the Ministry. However, the entire issue pertains to matters arising from the selection process to the CRPF within the State of Maharashtra, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction. This issue has already been covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Indian Maritime University v. Dr. K.G. Viswanathan & Others [2014 (4) KLT

798].

4. I have heard the respective counsel on both sides, and upon considering the averments, it appears that there is force in the contentions advanced by the counsel for the respondents, as the entire cause of arose within the State of Maharashtra, and only the revision petition was preferred from this State, followed by the filing of the present writ petition.

Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226, when the cause of action arose within the State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top