Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shruti Mehta vs Union Of India on 1 September, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24520
1 WP-33544-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 1 st OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33544 of 2025
SHRUTI MEHTA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashutosh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the
respondents.
ORDER
1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to call
entire record of the case pertaining to respondent no.5
from respondents No. 1 to 3.
(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to initiate enquiry against the
respondent no.5 and initiate necessary disciplinary
action against him.
(c) To direct the respondents no.1 to 3 to provide
adequate monitory compensation to petitioner for the
loss of her future prospects as per law.
(d) To direct the learned court below Patiala House
Court Delhi to finish the trial of respondent no.5 within
time bound period of three months.
(e) To grant any other relief as deem, fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case with the cost of this writ
petition, be also awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24520
2 WP-33544-2025
1, 2 and 3 are not taking any action against respondent No.5 as regards the
alleged physical assault committed on her by him, who was the Head of
Department of Earth Science, IIT Roorki and was also the mentor and
adviser of the petitioner. The petitioner had taken admission in IIT, Roorki
for pursuing her studies from the year 2013 to 2018 and she also worked as a
Researcher from October, 2019 to 2021. In 2022 respondent No.5 made
physical contact and committed molestation upon her. The petitioner
complained to the counselor. In June, 2022 respondent No.5 physically
assaulted her at Delhi. Thereafter he has been threatening the petitioner. She
made a complaint to Internal Complaint Committee of IIT, Roorki on
27.09.2023. By letter dated 15.05.2024 the Complaint Committee found
respondent No.5 guilty of misconduct but no severe punishment was awarded
to him. Since no action has been taken against respondent No.5 the present
petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary
objection as regards the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this
petition submitting that the entire cause of action and the alleged incidences
have taken place at Roorki and at Delhi hence this Court does not have
territorial jurisdiction to hear this petition. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that because the petitioner is a lady and it is not
possible for her to travel to the aforesaid places this Court very much has the
jurisdiction to hear this petition.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24520
3 WP-33544-2025
5 . The issue as to whether place of residence of a litigating party
would confer jurisdiction to the High Court within whose territorial
jurisdiction he resides has been considered by this Court in the case
o f Rajendra Singh Bhadoriya V/s. Union of India and Others 2019 SCC
Online MP 6110. The relevant extract of the said judgment is as under:-
" 15. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Prakash
Ambedkar v. Union of India, reported in 2001 (1) MPHT 176 has held as
under:--
"12. ****
13. ......... So far as the petitioner's residence is concerned, it
would always depend upon his own choice. He may settle in any
part of India, but his settlement would not clothe such Court within
whose jurisdiction he is residing any territorial jurisdiction. It is
only that the Court, where the cause of action either in whole or in
part arises, would have the jurisdiction to hear and decide a lis."
****
7. XXXXX
8. *****
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Jaswant Singh v. UOI,
reported in 2017 LIC 2996 has held as under:--
"15. In view of the pleadings of the parties and the uncontroverted
stand taken by the respondents in their objection, it is evident that
no legal right of the petitioner has prima facie either been infringed
or threatened to be infringed by the respondents within the
territorial limits of this Court's jurisdiction. The petitioner has
merely filed a statutory appeal during his tenure of posting at
Jammu which does not amount to infringement of legal right of the
petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mere
posting of the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court taking into account the fact
that entire action taken against the petitioner which is subject-
matter of challenge of this petition has been taken place beyond
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court would not confer any
territorial jurisdiction on this Court to entertain the writ petition.
The decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner in the case of Nawal Kishor Sharma supra has no
application to the fact situation of the case as the appellant in the
said case was suffering from serious heart ailment which forced
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24520
4 WP-33544-2025
him to stay in the native place. Besides that, it is pertinent to
mention here that the respondents responded to his representations
and the same were communicated to him on his home address in
Bihar. In the instant case, the representation submitted by the
petitioner from the State of Jammu and Kashmir have failed to
evoke any response, therefore it cannot be said that any part of the
cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court. In the aforesaid context, the Supreme Court has held that
part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Patna
High Court, which is not the case here."
16. The moot question for consideration is that:--
"Whether the place of residence can be said to be the integral part of
cause of action or not?"
17. The cause of action would mean those disputed issues
which are required to be decided while adjudicating the
claim of the litigating parties. When the place of residence
of a litigating party has no relevance with the subject-matter
of the lis, then the same cannot be said to be an integral part
of cause of action.
18. ****
19. Thus, Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not
provide that the residence of the petitioner would give rise
to a part of cause of action."
6. In Amit Singh Tomar V/s. Union of India and Others, W.P.
No.19795/2024 decided on 24.07.2024 also it was held that mere posting of
the petitioner at Gwalior challenging his dismissal order passed at Srinagar
(Jammu and Kashmir) would not confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Court
at Gwalior merely because the petitioner is posted at Gwalior.
7. The alleged incidents against the petitioner have taken place at
Roorki and Delhi which are beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
The criminal case at the instance of the petitioner against respondent No.5 is
also pending at Delhi and the order which has been passed by the Complaint
Committee on her complaint was also passed at Roorki. Thus, no cause of
action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The place of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24520
5 WP-33544-2025
residence of the petitioner can have relevance with the subject matter of the
lis only when the same forms an integral part of the cause of action. In the
available facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that mere
residence of the petitioner at Indore has any relevance with the subject matter
of the lis and cannot be said to be an integral part of the cause of action. The
petitioner has failed to establish that a legal right claimed by her has prima
facie been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondents
within the territorial limits of this Court. The fact that the petitioner is
residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court has no bearing with
the lis or the dispute involved in the present case.
8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that
this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition which
is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed for that reason. However, the
petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the competent Court having
territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
