Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nirmal Kumar Jain vs M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board on 28 February, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
WP No. 17560 of 2019
(NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN Vs M.P. STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD AND OTHERS)
Dated : 28-02-2024
Shri Amit Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kamal Nayan Airen, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
1. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding
maintainability of the petition on the ground that this Bench has no territorial
jurisdiction in the matter. It is submitted that the order of punishment against the
petitioner was passed at District Vidisha which is within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court at Principal Seat at Jabalpur. It is further submitted that
the Appeal as well as the Review preferred by the petitioner have been decided
at Bhopal which is also within the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Bench at
Jabalpur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of
review has been communicated to the petitioner at Rajgarh and had also been
passed when he had already been posted at Rajgarh which is within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Bench.
3. The impugned order dismissing the review of the petitioner was
communicated by the respondents to him at Rajgarh. In support of his
arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of K.P. Govil vs. Jawaharlal
Nehru Krishi Vishwavidalaya reported in 1987 MPLJ (32) 396 wherein it
was has held as under :-
"Held, that the Writ Petition was maintainable
before the Bench at Gwalior.The expression in the
Presidential Notification dated 28.11.1968 "in
respect of cases arising in the Revenue Districts of
Gwalior, Shivpuri, Datia, Guna, Vidisha (Bhilsa),
"Bhind and Morena" means the place or places
within the specified revenue districts where the
whole or a part of cause of action arises. If the
cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place
of places within the specific revenue districts, the
Gwalior Bench will have jurisdiction. The fact
that the order of appointment was accepted by
joining the post at Gwalior would form part of
cause of action and it would arise at the place
where the order is implemented by joining the
post. A part of the cause of action having arisen at
Gwalior, the Gwalior Bench had jurisdiction to
entertain petition."
4. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India
and others reported in 2014 (9) SCC 329 wherein Supreme Court has held
the petition to be maintainable. Considering the part cause of action arising at a
particular place in para 17 is held as under :-
"17. We have perused the facts pleaded in the writ
petition and the documents relied upon by the
appellant. Indisputably, the appellant reported
sickness on account of various ailments including
difficulty in breathing. He was referred to hospital.
Consequently, he was signed off for further
medical treatment. Finally, the respondent
permanently declared the appellant unfit for sea
service due to dilated cardiomyopathy (heart
muscles disease). As a result, the Shipping
Department of the Government of India issued an
order on 12.4.2011 cancelling the registration of
the appellant as a seaman. A copy of the letter was
sent to the appellant at his native place in Bihar
where he was staying after he was found medically
unfit. It further appears that the appellant sent a
representation from his home in the State of Bihar
to the respondent claiming disability
compensation. The said representation was replied
by the respondent, which was addressed to him on
his home address in Gaya, Bihar rejecting his
claim for disability compensation. It is further
evident that when the appellant was signed off and
declared medically unfit, he returned back to his
home in the District of Gaya, Bihar and, thereafter,
he made all claims and filed representation from
his home address at Gaya and those letters and
representations were entertained by the
respondents and replied and a decision on those
representations were communicated to him on his
home address in Bihar. Admittedly, appellant was
suffering from serious heart muscles disease
(Dilated Cardiomyopathy) and breathing problem
which forced him to stay in native place,
wherefrom he had been making all correspondence
with regard to his disability compensation. Prima
facie, therefore, considering all the facts together,
a part or fraction of cause of action arose within
the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court where he
received a letter of refusal disentitling him from
disability compensation"
5. In the case of Shanti Devi @ Shanti Mishra Vs. Union of India
and others reported in 2020 (10) SCC 766 the three Judges Bench of
Supreme Court has considered the aspect of territorial jurisdiction on the
ground of forum convenience and has held as under :-
"32. As noted above, the learned single Judge has
also observed that petitioner ought to have filed
the writ petition in Jharkhand High Court where
his earlier writ petition was pending. The earlier
writ petition which was initially filed in 2006 in
Patna High Court was for refund of the amount as
noted above. After dismissal of the writ petition by
Patna High Court on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction, Shri B.N. Mishra had filed
a Writ Petition No.4930 of 2013 in Jharkhand High
Court for the relief which was claimed in Writ
Petition No.13955 of 2006. As noted above, the
cause of action for filing the Writ Petition No.
5999 of 2014 was entirely different. Stoppage of
pension and asking for refund of more than Rs. 08
lakhs amount had serious adverse effect on the
petitioner, who was staying at his native place
Darbhanga. A retired employee, who is receiving
pension, cannot be asked to go to another court to
file the writ petition, when he has a cause of action
for filing a writ petition in Patna High Court. For a
retired employee convenience is to prosecute his
case at the place where he belonged to and was
getting pension. The submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 on principle
of forum non-conveniens has no substance."
6. In the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that for constituting a
cause of action, it is not only the place where the order is made, but also the
place where the consequences fall on the person concern which are to be
considered. In the present case, the impugned order dismissing the review of
the petitioner was communicated to him in District Rajgarh and its
consequences have fallen on him at District Rajgarh which is within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Bench.
7. The judgement in the case of Omprakash Gupta V/s. Adhyaksh
W.P. No.6136/2014 decided on 25.07.2018 relied upon by the learned
counsel for respondent No.1 by the Gwalior Bench is distinguishable on facts
since in that case it was not in issue where the order has been communicated.
The issue was as to where the property in dispute is situated and on that basis it
was held that it is only the Bench within the territorial jurisdiction of which the
disputed property is situated would have the territorial jurisdiction and merely
because the order has been passed by the Board of Revenue at Gwalior, the
Gwalior Bench will not have the jurisdiction. Similarly in the case of
Mangladasi V/s. Ajaydas Gurulaladas ji (2017) 3 MPLJ 286 it was held
that since the property in dispute is situated at Khandwa and the order has been
passed by the Board of Revenue at Gwalior which are not within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Indore Bench, it would not have the territorial jurisdiction
particularly when the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain had
not been challenged in the petition. This judgment also does not help
respondent No.1 in any manner.
8. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that this Court
has territorial jurisdiction in the matter and the objection raised by the
respondent No.1 is rejected.
9. Learned counsel for the parties submits that the pleadings are
complete.
10. List the matter after six weeks.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
