Madras High Court
K.S.Selvam vs The Executive ... on 9 June, 2021
W.P. (MD) No.9901 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. (MD) No. 9901 of 2021
and
W.M.P. (MD) No. 7604 of 2021
K.S.Selvam ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Executive Director/Appellate Authority,
Canara Bank,
No.112, J.C. Road,
Head Office,
Bangalore.
2.The Chief General Manager/Disciplinary Authority,
Canara Bank,
Industrial Relation Section,
No.112, J.C. Road,
Head Office,
Bangalore.
3.The Assistant General Manager/Inquiring Authority,
Canara Bank,
Circle Office,
Chandigarh.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD) No.9901 of 2021
4.The Assistant General Manager,
Canara Bank,
Regional Office,
(Formerly Divisional Office-East),
Pandyan House,
Madurai. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to consider the
Petitioner's Appeal and dispose of the same pending before him from
02.09.2020 onwards, within the time frame that may be stipulated by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Murugan
For Respondents : Mr. N. Dilip Kumar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
Heard Mr. R. Murugan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr. N. Dilip Kumar, Learned Counsel, who takes notice for the Respondents
and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the
parties.
2. The Petitioner, who was working as Chief Manager in Circle Office,
Karnal, of the Respondent from 28.09.2018 to 27.08.2019, was transferred to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD) No.9901 of 2021
Srinagar Main Branch, Chandigarh, by order dated 24.05.2019 and as he had
not reported for duty, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him
which culminated in the order No.HRW IRS DP CHD 2467 2020 dated
21.08.2020 issued by the Second Respondent inflicting the Petitioner with
the penalty of dismissal. The Petitioner thereafter claims to have preferred an
appeal dated 02.09.2020 against that order before the First Respondent and
this Writ Petition has been filed for directing the First Respondent to dispose
the said appeal within a time limit that may be stipulated by the Court.
3. When the Writ Petition has been taken up for admission before this
Court today, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was required to substantiate
as to how the Writ Petition could be entertained by this Court as neither the
Respondents are having their 'seat of authority' nor any part of the 'cause of
action' has arisen within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of this Court,
having regard to the mandate of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner presently
resides at Meenakshiyapuram, Duraisamiyapuram Post, Sivagiri, Tenkasi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD) No.9901 of 2021
District, PIN – 627757, from where he has sent the appeal, which falls within
the jurisdiction of this Court.
5. The question whether the mere service of a notice to a person at his
residence would entitle him to seek legal remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India before the High Court where his residence is situated,
arose for adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Rajasthan -vs- Swaika Properties [1985 (3) SCC 217], in which it has been
held as follows:-
“8. The expression 'cause of action' is tersely defined in Mulla's
Code of Civil Procedure:
"The 'cause of action' means every fact which, if
traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove
in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court."
In other words , it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law
applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the
defendant. The mere service of notice under S. 52(2) of the Act on
the respondents at their registered office at 18-B , Brabourne
Road, Calcutta i.e. within the territorial limits of the State of West
Bengal, could not give rise to a cause of action within that
territory unless the service of such notice was an integral part of
the cause of action. The entire cause of action culminating in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD) No.9901 of 2021
acquisition of the land under s. 52(1) of the Act arose within the
State of Rajasthan i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Rajasthan High Court at the Jaipur Bench.
The answer to the question whether service of notice is an integral
part of the cause of action within the meaning of Art. 226(2) of the
Constitution must depend upon the nature of the impugned order
giving rise to a cause of action. The notification dated February 8,
1984 issued by the State Government under S. 52(1) of the Act
became effective the moment it was published in the official
Gazette as thereupon the notified land became vested in the State
Government free from all encumbrances. It was not necessary for
the respondents to plead the service of notice on them by the
Special Officer, Town Planning Department, Jaipur under S. 52(2)
for the grant of an appropriate writ, direction or order under Art.
226 of the Constitution for quashing the notification issued by the
State Government under S. 52(1) of the Act. If the respondents felt
aggrieved by the acquisition of their lands situate at Jaipur and
wanted to challenge the validity of the notification issued by the
State Government of Rajasthan under S. 52(1) of the Act by a
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the remedy of the
respondents of the grant of such relief had to be sought by filing
such a petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench,
where the cause of action wholly or in part arose.” "
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD) No.9901 of 2021
Applying the aforesaid principles, afortiorari the mere fact that the appeal
filed by the Petitioner was despatched from his residence at Tenkasi, within
the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of this Court, would
not form any part of 'cause of action' for the Writ Petition to arise for
directing the disposal of that appeal by the First Respondent whose 'seat of
authority' is not situated within its territorial limits.
6. It is borne out of record that the termination of the Petitioner from
employment has not taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court. Even if it is assumed that in addition to the other Courts, this Court
would also have territorial jurisdiction, the principle of forum convenience
would clearly operate to the effect that the Court ought not to entertain a Writ
Petition when the part of the cause of action was trivial or negligible as in
this case, as fortified by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
C. Ramesh -vs- The Director General of Police (Order dated 06.06.2013 in
W.P. (MD) No. 8790 of 2013) where it has been held as follows:-
“7. Exercise of jurisdiction is based on arising of the cause of
action, either in whole or in part in any one of the said
Revenue Districts. [See RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD) No.9901 of 2021
ADVOCATES' ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTEHRS (2001 (2) SCC 294) and B.STALIN Vs. THE
REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND
OTHERS (2012 (3) LW 489 (FB))].
8. It should be remembered that the part of cause of action
must be substantial in nature. The territorial jurisdiction of
the Court is linked with the place of accrual of cause of
action. [See U.P. RASHTRIYA CHINI MILL ADHIKARI
PARISHAD, LUCKNOW Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND
OTHERS (1995 (4) SCC 738)].
9. Referring to KUSUM INGOTS & ALLOYS LTD. Vs.
UNION OF INDIA (2004 (3) CTC 365), a Full Bench of this
Court in SANJOS JEWELLERS Vs. SYNDICATE BANK,
BANGALORE AND OTHERS (2007 (5) CTC 305), held as
under:-
"30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a
small part of cause of action arises within the territorial
jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not
be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the
High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate
cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction by invoking the Doctrine of forum
conveniens. [See BHAGAT SINGH BUGGA Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD) No.9901 of 2021
DEWAN JAGBIR SAWHNEY, AIR 1941 CAL 670 : ILR
(1941) 1 CAL 490; MADANLAL JALAN Vs.
MADANLAL, 1945 (49) CWN 357: AIR 1949 CAL 495;
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. Vs. JHARIA TALKIES
& COLD STORAGE (P) LTD., 1997 CWN 122;
S.S.JAIN & CO. Vs. UNION OF INDIA, 1994 (1) CHN
445, and NEW HORIZONS LTD. Vs. UNION OF
INDIA, AIR 1994 DEL 126]."
10. Question of entertaining a lis disclosing a cause of action
or part of cause of action is based on the averments contained
in the affidavit etc. At that stage, the truth or otherwise of the
averments need not be gone into. But, there must be necessary
averments disclosing a cause of action, so that the Court can
take cognizance of/entertaining the lis exposed in the petition
for taking further action. [See OIL AND NATURAL GAS
COMMISSION Vs. UTPAL KUMAR BASU AND OTHERS
(1994 (4) SCC 711)].
11. A Court cannot arrogate/assume/confer upon itself a
jurisdiction-territorial jurisdiction, when it has no such
jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction to entertain a matter goes to
the root of the matter, otherwise whatever action taken or
orders passed by the Court becomes a nullity, it is non est and
of no consequence at all resulting in wasting of precious
public time. Courts are barred from indulging in hypothetic
and academic exercises.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD) No.9901 of 2021
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any
justification to entertain the Writ Petition and accordingly, the same is
dismissed. It is made clear that no views on the merits of the factual
controversies have been expressed by this Court and the rejection of this Writ
Petition for the aforesaid reason would not preclude the Petitioner from
working out his remedies for eligible relief, if he is otherwise entitled, before
the proper forum in the manner recognized by law. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitioner is closed. No costs.
09.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsm/SRM
Note: In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD) No.9901 of 2021
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
vsm/SRM
To
1.The Executive Director/Appellate Authority,
Canara Bank,
No.112, J.C. Road,
Head Office, Bangalore.
2.The Chief General Manager/Disciplinary Authority,
Canara Bank,
Industrial Relation Section,
No.112, J.C. Road,
Head Office, Bangalore.
3.The Assistant General Manager/Inquiring Authority,
Canara Bank, Circle Office, Chandigarh.
4.The Assistant General Manager,
Canara Bank, Regional Office,
(Formerly Divisional Office-East),
Pandyan House, Madurai.
W.P.(MD)No.9901 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.7604 of 2021
09.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
