Jharkhand High Court

Nishi Kant Ranjan vs National Dairy Development Board on 3 April, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      W.P.(S) No. 6338 of 2017
                                   -----
    Nishi Kant Ranjan, S/o Late Arvind Sharma            ------ Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
    National Dairy Development Board, through its Chairman, having office at Anand,
    P.O. & P.S.-Anand, District- Anand (Gujrat) & Others ------ Respondent(s)
                                     ......
               CORAM         :  SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, Advocate .........

09/ 03.04.2025: By this order, the preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of this writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court is being disposed of.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the entire cause of action had occurred within the State of Gujarat, thus, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. As per him departmental chargesheet, enquiry and even the order of dismissal were passed by the authority in Gujarat, thus, this Court should not entertain this petition and dismiss the same on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the entire proceeding had taken place within the State of Gujarat, but the proceeding which was initiated for committing the alleged misconduct admittedly, had taken place within the State of Jharkhand, thus, this Court has territorial jurisdiction as part of cause of action had accrued within the State.

4. After hearing the parties, I find that the main issue which is to be decided is whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition or not and whether any part of cause of action has arisen within the State of Jharkhand or not. To appreciate the preliminary issue raised by the respondents it is important to quote Article 226 (1) and (2) of the Constitution.:-

226. (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.

(3)......

(4).......

5. As per Article 226(2) of Constitution, the power to issue direction or writ can be exercised by the High Court, exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territory within which cause of action wholly or in part arises. If a part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court which exercises jurisdiction over the State, the writ will lie before the said High Court.

The cause of action is a very important aspect for the purpose of deciding territorial jurisdiction. Each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition does not give rise to cause of action. It is the fact which has nexus or which has relevance to the dispute is a cause of action for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Adani Exports Ltd., reported in (2002) 1 SCC 567 at para 5 held as under:-

5. Having considered the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and having perused the records, we are of the considered opinion that the question of jurisdiction should be first decided by us before going into the merits of the case in hand. As a matter of fact, we feel it would have been more appropriate on the facts of these cases if the High Court had proceeded under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code by deciding the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue first instead of deciding the case on merit.

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa vs. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd., reported in (2023) 7 SCC 791 has discussed about what is cause of action under Article 226 (2) of the Constitution. As per the Hon'ble Court, it is the facts which are relevant to grant relief is the cause of action. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment needs to be quoted hereinbelow:-

16. The expression 'cause of action' has not been defined in the Constitution.

However, the classic definition of 'cause of action' given by Lord Brett in Cooke vs. Gill1 that "cause of action means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court", has been accepted by this Court in a couple of decisions. It is axiomatic that without a cause, there cannot be any action. However, in the context of a writ petition, what would constitute such 'cause of action' is the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed.

17. Determination of the question as to whether the facts pleaded constitute a part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, would necessarily 1 (1873) 8 CP 107 involve an exercise by the high court to ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, constitute a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. In so determining, it is the substance of the matter that is relevant. It, therefore, follows that the party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the high court to decide the dispute and that, at least, a part of the cause of action to move the high court arose within its jurisdiction. Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted. Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court. These are the guiding tests.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Kalyan Banerjee, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 456 at para 8 held as under:-

8.The question to some extent was considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India, [(2004) 6 SCC 254] stating: (SCC p. 261, para 18).

18. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the Court."

The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated in V.G. Jagdishan vs. Indofos Industries Ltd., reported in (2022) 6 SCC 167. Para 11 of the same is quoted below:-

"11. As such the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Kalyan Banerjee; (2008) 3 SCC 456. In the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra) the workman was employed in Mugma area in the district of Dhanbad, Jharkhand. His services were terminated at Mugma. However, the workman filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. On a preliminary objection taken the Calcutta High Court held that since the workman was serving at Mugma area under the General Manager of the area which is the State of Jharkhand, the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction. Affirming the aforesaid decision, this Court held that the entire cause of action arose in Mugma area within the State of Jharkhand

and only because the head office of the company was situated in the State of West Bengal, the same by itself will not confer any jurisdiction upon the Calcutta High Court particularly when the head office had nothing to do with the order of punishment passed against the workman. In the present case also, the workman was employed at Ghaziabad; he was working at Ghaziabad and his services were also terminated at Ghaziabad by the office at Ghaziabad where he was employed.

6. In the matter in hand, though the petitioner has challenged the departmental proceeding and the orders, it is an admitted fact that the suspension order of the petitioner and charges, which has been levelled against the petitioner are related to the period when the petitioner was posted at Ranchi within the State of Jharkhand and was working in Jharkhand Milk Federation (JMF), Ranchi. The entire misconduct which has been alleged against the petitioner has been allegedly committed by him while he was in Ranchi. Therefore, mere initiation of the departmental proceeding at Gujarat is not the only cause of action for the purpose of this application where the departmental proceeding is under challenge. The cause of action which gave rise to this departmental proceeding i.e. suspension, enquiry etc. and in fact the alleged misconduct, had taken place within the State of Jharkhand, over which this High Court has territorial jurisdiction. The work place of the employee was at Jharkhand, Ranchi. Misconduct of the petitioner, if any, was committed by him in Ranchi. This misconduct is a very important cause of action as this misconduct led to initiation of the departmental proceeding. Thus, the part of cause of action definitely arose within the State of Jharkhand. Since the part of cause of action arose within the State of Jharkhand, this Court does not lack territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Hence, I hold that the writ petition is maintainable and the issue of preliminary objection raised by respondent is answered against them.