Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 29729
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN, J
MANISH KASOTIYA SON OF SHRI ISHWAR LAL – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
CW / 12986 / 2021
Ms. Sara Parveen for Mr. T. N. Singh, Mr. Sunil Kumar Saini, Mr. Devesh Yadav for Mr. R. D. Rastogi, ASG
A High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 if part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits, even if the primary challenge is against authorities outside those limits.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Territorial jurisdiction - The court addressed whether it has jurisdiction to entertain petitions when the recruitment process was nationwide and involved authorities from different states, including the State of Rajasthan - The court emphasized that part of the cause of action arising within its jurisdiction is sufficient for it to entertain the writ petition. (Paras 1, 6, 10)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court ruled that the recruitment process was composite and interconnected, thus establishing territorial jurisdiction based on the location of certain stages of the recruitment process in Rajasthan. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, permanent residents of Rajasthan, participated in a nationwide recruitment process, with various stages conducted in different states, including Rajasthan. The primary challenge was to an order issued by authorities in New Delhi.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, allowing it to entertain the petitions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court lacked territorial jurisdiction due to the recruitment process being conducted nationwide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a part cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction is sufficient for the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing the interconnected nature of the recruitment process.
Result: Preliminary objection regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction overruled.
Order
31/01/2024
1. On 24.01.2024, this Court had heard the rival submissions on the following issue:
“Whether this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain petitions when the recruitment process was held nationwide and the applicants were made to appear before different authorities situated at different States, including the State of Rajasthan, when the primary challenge is to an impugned order issued outside the State of Rajasthan?”
2. Learned ASG, in support of his contention that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction, made the following submissions:
2.1. The impugned orders have been issued by authorities situated in New Delhi, i.e. by authorities who are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. As per Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as per Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments of Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India & Anr.: (2006) 6 SCC 207, to seek relief from a High Court, the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by respondent within the territorial limits of the High Court. Since the primary relief is sought against the authorities/respondents situated in New Delhi, it is contended that this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
2.2. Merely because the petitioner is a resident of Rajasthan would not mean that a part cause of action has arisen in the State of Rajasthan. Reliance in this regard is placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors.: (1994) 4 SCC 711 , judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Somya Saxena vs. National Medical Commission & Ors. (DBSAW No. 1312/2022; decided on 06.10.2023) and judgments of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nikita Kumari vs. Union of India & Ors. (SBCWP No. 23478/2017; decided on 05.02.2018), Norat Rana vs. Union of India & Ors. (SBCWP No. 13031/2017; decided on 26.04.2023) and Chhotu Singh Naruka vs. Union of India & Ors. (SBCWP No. 3904/2005; decided on 07.09.2005).
2.3. The question of territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be arrived at solely on the basis of averments made in the petition. The High Court can entertain a writ petition only if some material/integral cause of action has arisen in its territorial jurisdiction. Merely because some part of the recruitment process was conducted in the State of Rajasthan, for operational convenience, would not give jurisdiction to this Court to consider challenge to an impugned order which was issued outside the territorial limits of this Court. Reliance is placed on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs Union of India: (2004) 6 SCC 254 , Alchemist Ltd. vs. State of Sikkim : (2007) 11 SCC 335 , and State of Goa vs. Summit Online Trade Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors.: (2023) 7 SCC 791 .
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned members of the Bar, in support of their contention that this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petitions, made the following submissions:
3.1. The advertisement dated 28.07.2020 was issued for recruitment on pan India basis. Apart from being permanent residents of State of Rajasthan, the petitioners (in SBCWP No. 18606/2023 and SBCWP No. 18609/2023) qualified the PET/PST at Alwar (Rajasthan) and the computer test at dedicated centers situated at Sikar (Rajasthan). Further, the petitioners undertook and qualified the trade test in District Supaul (Bihar). Thereafter, the petitioners were called upon to undertake the detailed medical examination at New Delhi. It is contended that the entire recruitment process, though conducted in different States, was as indivisible one. The different stages of the recruitment process were inter-connected and therefore, as per the provision of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India , even if a fraction of cause of action arises in the territorial jurisdiction of
