Jharkhand High Court
Ranjan Kumar vs The Union Of India And Ors on 11 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5019 of 2011
Ranjan Kumar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and Ors. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
---
05/11.10.2022 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. From perusal of the records of this case, it appears that an
objection was raised by the respondents and recorded in order dated
20.09.2022 that the present writ petition is not maintainable before
this Court as no cause of action has arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner had
sought adjournment to respond to the said plea.
3. Today when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the present writ petition was filed before this
Court on 27.08.2011 and it has been stated in the writ petition that the
petitioner was posted as Sub Inspector /Executive at CISF Unit, GOM
(Gua Ore Mines), Gua, West Singbhum, Jharkhand. Learned counsel
has submitted that no such objection has been taken by the
respondents in the counter-affidavit and longtime has elapsed. Learned
counsel has also referred to judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court dated 19.01.2001 to submit that in the said case also, the writ
petition which was filed before the concerned High Court as back as
in the year 1992 was dismissed in the year 1999 on account of want of
territorial jurisdiction. He submits that in the said case, it was also
observed that the Chief of Army Staff may be sued anywhere in the
Country and placing reliance only on the cause of action, as the High
Court did, was not justified. Learned counsel submits that here also,
the last order has been passed by respondent no.3 i.e., Inspector
General, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi, who is the authority for entire India.
4. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dinesh Chandra Gahtori vs. Chief of Army Staff in Civil Appeal No.
92 of 2001, dated 19.01.2001 as produced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner during the court proceedings is quoted as under:-
"Leave granted.
2. The notice on the special leave petition stated that the
matter might be disposed of at this stage by an order setting aside the
order under challenge and restoring the writ petition to the file of the
High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits.
3. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court at
Allahabad to quash a communication sent to his wife which stated that
the appellant had been tried by a Summary Court Martial and had been
found guilty of using criminal force against his superior officer and
awarded the sentence of dismissal from service. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage by holding"
"In view of the fact that the summary court-martial proceedings
were conducted in the State of Punjab and orders were also passed in
Punjab by the West Command, we are of the view that this Court has got
no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition."
4. The writ petition was filed in 1992. The impugned order
was passed in 1999. This is a fact that the High Court should have taken
into consideration. More importantly, it should have taken into
consideration the fact that the Chief of Army Staff may be sued anywhere
in the country. Placing reliance only on the cause of action, as the High
Court did, was not justified.
5. The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set
aside. The writ petition (CMWP No. 39209 of 1992) is restored to the file
of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits, expeditiously.
6. No order as to costs."
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the point of
jurisdiction of this Court and considering the aforesaid judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.01.2001 in Civil
Appeal No.92 of 2001 and also considering the fact that the present
writ petition was filed way back on 27.08.2011 and a counter-affidavit
has already been filed in the instant case as back as on 19.06.2012
wherein no plea on the point of territorial jurisdiction has been taken
and one of the impugned orders has been passed by respondent no.3,
who is an all India authority, the objection on the point of jurisdiction
raised by the learned counsel for respondents for the first time on
20.09.2022 is hereby rejected considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of this case.
6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, post this
case tomorrow i.e., on 12.10.2022 under the heading for Final
Disposal.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
