Rampyari Sahu vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 17781 MP

                                                                 1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                         WP No. 18901 of 2015
                                                 (RAMPYARI SAHU Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 26-10-2023
                                  Shri Saket Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Shri Pushpendra Yadav - A.S.G. for respondent- Union of India

The parties are heard on the question of territorial jurisdiction.

2. Indisputably, the petitioner an employee of CISF was terminated from service by order dated 06.11.2012 issued by Senior Commandant, CISF Unit,

ASG Banglore. The petitioner is a resident of village Tivarkhed, Tehsil Multai, Distt. Betul. The petitioner earlier filed WP No. 1431 of 2014 before this Bench. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to prefer a mercy appeal. The petitioner preferred a mercy appeal / review petition which was dismissed by order dated 21st August, 2015 (Annexure P-10).

3. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned ASG submits that the impugned order of termination was passed from Banglore when petitioner was also posted at Banglore. Thus, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. By placing reliance on 2004(1) MPLJ 205 ( Shri Krishan Yadav

Vs. Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force and Ors.), it is submitted that for want of territorial jurisdiction, this petition deserves to be rejected.

4. Faced with this, Shri Saket Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of 2001(9) SCC 525 (Dinesh Chandra Gahtori Vs. Chief of Army Staff and Anr.) the Additional Director General Director situated at New Delhi can be sued by filing petition from any Court. In addition, he submits that in view of judgment of this Court reported in (2020) 4 MPLJ 601 (Virendra Jatav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) since impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 10/27/2023 2:04:15 PM

order deciding review dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure P-10) is served at Multai, District Betul, the Principal Seat of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has jurisdiction because a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench.

5. Parties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

6. This Court in Virendra Jatav (supra) has opined as under:

"10. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties on merits, in the fitness of things, I deem it proper to decide the question of maintainability first.

This Court on 27-11-18 ignored objection of Registry regarding territorial jurisdiction. Apart from this, I find substance in the argument of Shri Ghildiyal that the impugned order dated 26-10-18 contains address of petitioner i.e. Village Jharkheda, Tehsil Shyampur, District Sehore, which is indisputably situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Seat. The Full Bench in K.P. Govil (supra) opined that cause of action would arise at a place where impugned order is made and also at a place where its consequence fall on the person concerned. In my opinion, the petitioner's case is covered by later portion of the said finding because the consequences of impugned order has fallen on the petitioner at Sehore. As per Article 226(2) of the Constitution, even if a part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of this Bench, the petition can be entertained. For these cumulative reasons, I am not inclined to dismiss this petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction."

7. The ratio decidendi of the order of Virendra Jatav (supra) is that if ill effect of an order has fallen on the petitioner within the territory of this Bench, it certainly forms at least minuscule part of cause of action. Thus, in the teeth of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court certainly has jurisdiction.

8. So far judgement of Shri Kishan Yadav (supra) on which Shri Pushpendra Yadav placed reliance is concerned, in that case the question decided by this Court was whether residence of petitioner within the territory Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 10/27/2023 2:04:15 PM

jurisdiction of this Court can form cause of action and give jurisdiction. In the instant case, petitioner is not claiming cause of action on the basis of place of residence. Instead, the petitioner is contending that effect of impugned order of review has fallen on him within the territory of this Bench. I find substance in the argument of Shri Saket Agrawal that at least a minuscule part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of this Bench. Resultantly, the preliminary objection about territorial jurisdiction is overruled.

9. The parties agreed to argue the matter finally in the week commencing 28th November, 2023.

10. Shri Saket Agrawal undertakes to prepare the synopsis before the next date of hearing.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE sarathe

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 10/27/2023 2:04:15 PM