Kumar Gaurav & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 700 Del

$~3
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                    Date of decision: March 08, 2022

+     LPA 89/2022, CM. APPL.6334/2022 & 8350-51/2022

      KUMAR GAURAV & ORS.                               .... Appellants
                        Through:     Mr. Manish Bishnoi, Ms. Sunieta
                                     Ojha and Ms. Pallavi, Advocates.

                        versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                           .... Respondents*
                    Through:         Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC
                                     for Respondent No.1/CGSC
                                     Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate for
                                     Respondent No.2/LIC of India

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

                        J U D G M E N T (Oral)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been instituted by the

appellants against final order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the learned

single Judge of this court in W.P. (C) No.806/2022 on the ground that

the learned single Judge has erred in not considering the

appellant/petitioners' contention that since the Central Government

had failed to issue directions to the Life Insurance Corporation of

India by exercising its powers under Section 21 of the Life Insurance

Act, 1956, the appellants were well within their rights to invoke the

writ jurisdiction of this court, since the Union of India resides within

the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since respondent

No.2-corporation is established by way of an Act of Parliament, it is

the bounden duty of respondent No.1 to ensure that the laws made by

Parliament are implemented by respondent No.2 in their true spirit.

3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the

learned single Judge also erred in not taking into consideration that

Delhi is the Zonal Office of respondent No. 2-corporation for the

Northern Zone, and as such, this court would have territorial

jurisdiction over all the divisional offices under it.

4. We have perused impugned order dated 13.01.2022 which is

challenged before this court wherein in paras 3 and 4, the learned

single Judge has recorded as under:

"3. I find that none of the petitioners, who have filed the petition, has applied against the notification issued by the Delhi Division. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all these petitioners have applied for recruitment against the notification issued by other Divisions, (not by Delhi Division). Learned counsel for the petitioners also concedes that

the applications under the RTI Act submitted by the petitioners have been replied to by the Authorities positioned outside Delhi indicating the existence of vacancies, which is the basis to file the present petition.

4. Suffice to state, no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition inasmuch as the recruitment notice is from outside Delhi; the petitioners are from outside Delhi; the policy if any is framed by the Head office in Mumbai; the prayer made in the petition can be considered, based on the vacancy position available in a particular Division; the appointing authority is based in the concerned Division, and the prayer made is for a direction to the Divisional offices (other than Delhi)."

5. In view of the above, we find no illegality, muchless any perversity,

in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge; and see no

merit in the present appeal.

6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE

(ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI) JUDGE MARCH 08, 2022/rk