Shri Satender Singh vs Union Of India And Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 4764 Del

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 4764 Del
Judgement Date : 22 July, 2016

Delhi High Court

Shri Satender Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 22 July, 2016

$~17
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of decision : 22 nd July, 2016
+       WP(C) 6261/2016
        SHRI SATENDER SINGH                      .....Appellant
                     Through: Mr. R.C. Gupta Advocate.
                     Versus
        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                       .....Respondents.

Through : Ms. Suparna Srivastava with Mr.Manu Dev Sharma , Advocate for R-1.

Mr. R. A. Iyer, Advocate for Mr.Gautam Narayan, ASC for GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL Ms. G. ROHINI, Chief Justice (Oral)

CM No. 25626/2016 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) No.6261/2016

1. The petitioner, stated to be an organization having its registered office at Avantika, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh filed this petition as a Public Interest Litigation seeking to raise certain issues relating to 'Jat Agitation' in Haryana. Various reliefs have been sought alleging that the agitation has resulted in large scale damage to the public and private property in Haryana and adjoining States. It is also alleged that the concerned authorities were reluctant to initiate genuine and effective measures to investigate and punish the perpetrators of the violence.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the material available on record, we found that the allegations in the petition are absolutely vague apart from the prayer being not specific.

3. Be that as it may, the petitioner being an organization located in

Ghaziabad, State of Uttar Pradesh and the alleged 'Jat Agitation' and the consequential events pleaded by the petitioner have also taken place in the state of Haryana, no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction also.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to institute fresh proceedings before the proper forum, if so advised.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL J.

JULY 22, 2016 gr