Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan Ladhi vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
WRIT APPEAL No. 3107 of 2024
MOHAN LODHI
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sarwesh Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Niwaskar -Deputy Solicitor General for R-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on: 22/04/2025
Delivered on: 29/04/2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The present writ appeal under Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh
Uccha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 is
directed against the order passed in Writ petition No.7161/2024
dated 01.07.2024 by learned Single Judge wherein challenge was
made to the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by Inspector General
dismissing the Review Petition, order dated 07.07.2009 passed by
DIG, CRPF inflicting punishment of dismissal from service and
order dated 05.03.2008 passed by Additional DIG, CRPF,
dismissing the appeal preferred against the punishment of
dismissal, whereby the petition was disposed of on the point of
jurisdiction with a liberty to agitate the matter before the Court
having jurisdiction holding that since no part of cause of action
arose within territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the
petition was not maintainable.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant had argued before this
Court that the jurisdiction of Writ Court is circumscribed by the
pleadings made in the petition and the relief claimed therein and it
cannot undertake any exercise which is not germane from the
pleadings or the relief clause and also cannot enlarge the scope of
its enquiry so as to include aspects which were not pleaded or
prayed for, but since in the present matter a part of cause of action
of the enquiry had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court, this Court assumes jurisdiction to hear the matter, but
learned Writ Court without appreciating the aforesaid aspect had
dismissed the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction
which is per se illegal.
3. Learned counsel had further argued that this Court had
assumed jurisdiction since warrant of arrest against the appellant
was issued to S.P. Gwalior vide letter dated 17.08.2006 for his
apprehension and only, thereafter, he was declared as deserter vide
order dated 22.12.2006, thus, when the very warrant of arrest was
issued to the petitioner while he was within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court, it was not correct to say that this Court
has no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
4. To bolster his submissions he had placed reliance in the
matters of State of Rajasthan and Ors vs. M/s Swaika
Properties and Another reported in 1985 (3) SCC 217,
Shrikrishan Yadav vs. Commandant CRPF and Ors reported in
2004 (1) MPJR 74 and Nawal Kishor Sharma vs. Union of
India and Ors reported in 2014 (9) SCC 329.
5. In the light of the aforesaid judgments it was argued that
cause of action wholly or in part if had arisen within territorial
jurisdiction of High Court or not is to be determined in light of
nature and character of proceedings under Article 226 and the
High Court can issue a writ if cause of action wholly or partially
arises within its territorial jurisdiction even if person or authority
against whom writ is issued is located outside its territorial
jurisdiction.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while
placing reliance in the matter of Rajesh Singh Parihar vs. Union
of India and Ors passed in W.P. No.7433/2014 dated 25.01.2024
by Single Bench of this Court which was lateron affirmed in W.A.
No.483/24 dated 29.02.2024 had argued that the appellant was
declared as deserter at Dantewade, Chattisgarh and the enquiry
was conducted at Dantewade only and after the enquiry since the
battalion was moved to Khatkhati, Assam the original order dated
18.06.2007 came to be passed at Khatkhati, thereafter, the
appellate authority also passed the order while sitting at
Khatkhati, Assam. It was further argued that even the review
preferred by the present appellant was before an authority at
Roriya, Jorhat, Assam, thus, when no cause of action arose within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the learned Single Judge
has rightly disallowed the petition which cannot be faulted with.
Thus, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. After hearing the rival contentions and the perusing the
impugned order, this Court finds that the petitioner was declared
deserter at Dantewade, enquiry was initiated and conducted at
Dantewade, Chattisgarh and, thereafter, the order of dismissal
from service was passed at Khatkhati Assam as the battalion had
moved to said place. The Appeal preferred against the order of
dismissal was also preferred before the authority at Khatkhati,
Assam and, thereafter, the review was also filed before an
authority based at Roriya, Jorhat, Assam. The contention of the
appellant that arrest warrant were issued against him at Gwalior,
therefore, this Court upsurge jurisdiction to hear the matter is
concerned, the said arrest warrant was issued in pursuance to one
FIR registered against him in connection with desertion from
camp at P.S. Dantewade, Chattisgarh and such issuance of warrant
of arrest had no relation with the departmental enquiry. Thus, it
can very well be said that no cause of action wholly or partially
arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
8. In the judgment which has been cited by the learned
counsel for the appellant it has also been held that in order to
maintain the writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that some
of his legal rights have been infringed by the respondents within
the territorial limit of the High Courts' jurisdiction, but as has
been discussed, the appellant had failed to establish infringement
of any of his legal rights within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court.
9. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in holding that
since no cause of action had arose within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court, the learned Single Judge had rightly
disposed of the petition as being not maintainable,
10. Accordingly, the appeal, therefore, being sans merit is
hereby dismissed.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke) (Rajendra Kumar Vani)
Judge Judge
chandni/- 29/04/2025 29/04/2025
CHAND Digitally signed by CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
NI
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=4a0af498d89b2d94b5abcc
1b4614d98feabd8b78228e0ec6eab
9a0bd4e622c09, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
NARW
GWALIOR,CID - 7022823,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
serialNumber=8c306c586aaa43d19
976f07886865f6fac4a246eee6bccd
ARIYA
256acdfce3dcf944f, cn=CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
Date: 2025.04.29 17:07:31 +05'30'
