IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9892 of 2022

======================================================

Anjali Priya @ Anjali D/o Ram Dev Ray, R/o Near Sanichara Sthan, Jawahar

Colony, P.S. - Town, Begusarai, District - Begusarai, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Managing Committee Pracheen Kala Kendra through its Secretary, Sector

35- B, Chandigarh - 160022

2.

Secretary, Pracheen Kala Kendra, Sector 35 -B, Chandigarh - 160022.

3.

Registrar, Pracheen Kala Kendra Sector 35- B, Chandigarh - 160022.

4.

Liaison Office, Pracheen Kala Kendra, Patna, through its Liaisoning

Officer/Director/Manager, having Office at Flat No. 31, 3rd Floor, Bhawnani

Commercial Complex, Near CDA Building, Rajendra Path, Patna - 800001.

5.

Abhishek Kumar, authorized representative at the liaison office of

Respondent No. 1 at Patna having office and present at Flat No. 31, 3rd

Floor, Bhawnani Commercial Complex, Near CDA Building, Rajendra Path,

Patna - 800001

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH

SHARMA

ORAL ORDER

3

22-12-2022

1. Admittedly the petitioners had applied for

affiliation from the Respondents at Chandigarh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to

bring jurisdiction of this Court on the basis that there is a liaison

office at Patna. However, the prayer made the present petition is

for restoring the affiliation which have been cancelled by the

Respondent No. 1 based at Chandigarh.

3. In view of the judgment passed in Alchemist Ltd.

& Anr. Vrs. State Bank of Sikkim & Ors., the Supreme Court

Patna High Court CWJC No.9892 of 2022(3) dt.22-12-2022

2/3

has held as under :-

“16. It may be stated that by the Constitution

(Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, Clause (1-A) was

renumbered as Clause (2). The underlying object of

amendment was expressed in the following words:

“Under the existing Article 226 of the Constitution, the

only High Court which has jurisdiction with respect to the

Central Government is the Punjab High Court. This

involves considerable hardship to litigants from distant

places. It is, therefore, proposed to amend Article 226 so

that when any relief is sought against any Government,

authority or person for any action taken, the High Court

within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises may

also have jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions,

orders or writs.”

17. As Joint Committee observed:

“This clause would enable the High Court within whose

jurisdiction the cause of action arises to issue directions,

orders or writs to any Government, authority or person,

notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or

authority or the residence of such person is outside the

territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The Committee

feels that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the

cause of action arises in part only should also be vested

with such jurisdiction.”

18. The legislative history of the constitutional

provisions, therefore, makes it clear that after 1963, cause

of action is relevant and germane and a writ petition can be

instituted in a High Court within the territorial jurisdiction

of which cause of action in whole or in part arises.

20. It may be stated that the expression “cause

of action” has neither been defined in the Constitution nor

in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It may, however, be

described as a bundle of essential facts necessary for the

plaintiff to prove before he can succeed. Failure to prove

such facts would give the defendant a right to judgment in

his favour. Cause of action thus gives occasion for and

forms the foundation of the suit.

21. The classic definition of the expression

“cause of action” is found in Cooke v. Gill [(1873) 8 CP

107 : 42