Delhi High Court
Geeta Sinha vs Union Of India & Anr. on 26 August, 2021
$~43
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26.08.2021
+ W.P.(C) 9089/2021 & CM APPL.28284/2021
GEETA SINHA ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar Shukla and Ms. Nupur Shukla,
Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Senior Counsel for Railways with
Mr. Preet Singh and Mr. Vipin Chaudhary,
Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns letter dated 02.02.2021 issued by the Senior
Divisional Commercial Manager, Danapur, Patna.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
appointing authority of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager is
the Railway Board and Railway Board is situated in Delhi, this Court
would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 9089/2021 Digitally Signed 1
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:26.08.2021
Signing Date:27.08.2021 08:47:53 23:09
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
4. He further submits that in similar circumstances the Supreme
Court of India has entertained several writ petitions and passed orders
granting benefit to various license holders across the country.
5. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner in as much as merely because the Railway Board which is
the appointing authority of the officer who has passed the impugned
order is situated in Delhi would not confer jurisdiction on this Court
especially when neither the authority whose order is impugned is
situated in Delhi nor any part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi.
6. The factum of Supreme Court entertaining Writ Petitions of
several vendors situated across the country would also not confer
jurisdiction on this court.
7. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, whose order is
impugned does not have a seat in Delhi and no part of the cause of
action has arisen in Delhi.
8. Further the contention that a 2010 policy has been issued by the
Railway Board and petitioner is seeking benefit under the policy also
does not further the case of the petitioner in as much as petitioner is
not aggrieved by any action of the Railway Board rather seeks
implementation of the policy by the concerned authority which is
situated at Danapur, Patna.
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 9089/2021 Digitally Signed 2
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:26.08.2021
Signing Date:27.08.2021 08:47:53 23:09
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
9. In view of the above, it is held that this petition would not lie
before this court. Petitioner would have to avail of her remedies in an
appropriate court having jurisdiction.
10. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
11. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
AUGUST 26, 2021/rk
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 9089/2021 Digitally Signed 3
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:26.08.2021
Signing Date:27.08.2021 08:47:53 23:09
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
