Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 12 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034802
CWP-5635-2024 1 2024:PHHC:034802
124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-5635-2024
Date of Decision:12.03.2024
JITENDER KUMAR ......... Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Simran Grewal, Advocate for the respondents-UOI.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order
dated 09.03.2022 (Annexure P-3), order dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure P-
7), order dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure P-9) and order dated 19.07.2023
(Annexure P-11) whereby petitioner was dismissed from service and his
appeal as well as revision and mercy petition have been rejected.
2. The order of dismissal from service dated 09.03.2022
(Annexure P-3) was passed at Odisha. The appellate, revisionary and
mercy petition orders were passed at Odisha or West Bengal.
3. The incident which led to dismissal from service occurred
outside the jurisdiction of this Court and thereafter all the impugned
orders came to be passed outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court on the sole ground
that petitioner is resident of State of Haryana and impugned orders were
communicated at his residence.
4. A two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alchemist
Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335 while dealing with
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034802
CWP-5635-2024 2 2024:PHHC:034802
question of territorial jurisdiction has held that "part of cause of action"
must arise to constitute territorial jurisdiction. High Court cannot invoke
writ jurisdiction if no part of cause of action has arisen within its
jurisdiction. In the said case, this Court dismissed writ petition despite
claim of petitioner that the petitioner company has its registered and
corporate office at Chandigarh; the offer of the petitioner company was
accepted on 20-2-2004 and the acceptance was communicated to it at
Chandigarh; part-performance of the contract took place at Chandigarh
inasmuch as Rs 4.50 crores had been deposited by the petitioner company
in a fixed deposit at Chandigarh as per the request of the first respondent;
the Chairman and Managing Director of the first respondent visited
Chandigarh to ascertain the bona fides of the petitioner company;
negotiations were held between the parties in the third week of March,
2005 at Chandigarh; and letter of revocation dated 23-2-2006 was
received by the petitioner company at Chandigarh. The petitioner
company filed SLP before Supreme Court which came to be dismissed.
The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:-
"6. The High Court dismissed the writ
petition only on the ground that it did not have
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as
no cause of action had arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court. The High Court did not enter
into merits of the matter and granted liberty to the
appellant Company to seek appropriate remedy before
an appropriate court.
7. The said decision of the High Court is
challenged by the appellant Company in this appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034802
CWP-5635-2024 3 2024:PHHC:034802
8. The appellant Company contended that a part of
cause of action had arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The appellant Company, for such submission, relied
on the following facts:
(i) the appellant Company has its registered and
corporate office at Chandigarh;
(ii) the appellant Company carries on business
at Chandigarh;
(iii) the offer of the appellant Company was
accepted on 20-2-2004 and the acceptance was
communicated to it at Chandigarh;
(iv) part-performance of the contract took place
at Chandigarh inasmuch as Rs 4.50 crores had
been deposited by the appellant Company in a
fixed deposit at Chandigarh as per the request
of the first respondent;
(v) the Chairman and Managing Director of the
first respondent visited Chandigarh to ascertain
the bona fides of the appellant Company;
(vi) negotiations were held between the parties
in the third week of March, 2005 at
Chandigarh;
(vii) letter of revocation dated 23-2-2006 was
received by the appellant Company at
Chandigarh. Consequences of the revocation
ensued at Chandigarh by which the appellant
Company is aggrieved.
It was, therefore, submitted that at least a part of
cause of action had certainly arisen within the
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana and hence it had jurisdiction to entertain
the petition. It was, therefore, submitted that the
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034802
CWP-5635-2024 4 2024:PHHC:034802
impugned order passed by the High Court deserves to
be set aside by directing the Court to decide the writ
petition on merits.
9. The respondents, on the other hand, submitted
that neither of the above facts nor circumstances can
be said to be a part of cause of action investing
jurisdiction in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
According to the respondents, all substantial, material
and integral facts constituting a cause of action were
within the territory of the State of Sikkim and, hence,
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was fully
justified in holding that it had no territorial
jurisdiction to entertain, deal with and decide the lis
between the parties.
10. The respondents, in this connection, relied upon
the following facts:
(i) registered and corporate office of the first
respondent Bank is at Gangtok i.e. Sikkim;
(ii) secretariat of the second respondent State is
situated at Gangtok i.e. Sikkim;
(iii) offers were called for from various parties
at Gangtok;
(iv) all offers were scrutinised and a decision to
accept offer of the appellant Company was
taken by the first respondent Bank at Gangtok;
(v) the State Government's decision not to
approve the proposal of the appellant Bank was
taken at Gangtok;
(vi) the meeting of the Board of Directors of the
first respondent Bank was convened at Gangtok
and a resolution was passed to withdraw the
letter dated 20-2-2004 at Gangtok;
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034802
CWP-5635-2024 5 2024:PHHC:034802
(vii) a communication was dispatched by the
first respondent Bank to the appellant Company
on 23-2-2004 from Gangtok.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
12. Before entering into the controversy in the
present appeal, let the legal position be examined:
Article 226 of the Constitution as it originally
enacted had twofold limitations on the
jurisdiction of High Courts with regard to their
territorial jurisdiction. Firstly, the power could
be exercised by the High Court "throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction" i.e. the writs issued by the court
cannot run beyond the territories subject to its
jurisdiction. Secondly, the person or authority to
whom the High Court is empowered to issue
such writs must be "within those territories",
which clearly implied that they must be
amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence
or location within those territories.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
26. In Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd.
[(1984) 2 SCC 646 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 348 : AIR 1984
SC 1264 : (1984) 3 SCR 342] the registered office of
the Company was situated at Ludhiana, but a petition
was filed in the High Court of Calcutta on the ground
that the Company had its branch office there. The
order was challenged by the Union of India. And this
Court held that since the registered office of the
Company was at Ludhiana and the principal
respondents against whom primary relief was sought
were at New Delhi, one would have expected the writ
petitioner to approach either the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana or the High Court of Delhi. The forum
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034802
CWP-5635-2024 6 2024:PHHC:034802
chosen by the writ petitioners could not be said to be
in accordance with law and the High Court of
Calcutta could not have entertained the writ petition.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
37. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in
view the ratio laid down in a catena of decisions by
this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding
whether facts averred by the appellant-petitioner
would or would not constitute a part of cause of
action, one has to consider whether such fact
constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the
cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small
fraction of the cause of action arises within the
jurisdiction of the court, the court would have
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition.
Nevertheless it must be a "part of cause of action",
nothing less than that.
38. In the present case, the facts which have been
pleaded by the appellant Company, in our judgment,
cannot be said to be essential, integral or material
facts so as to constitute a part of "cause of action"
within the meaning of Article 226(2) of the
Constitution. The High Court, in our opinion,
therefore, was not wrong in dismissing the petition.
39. For the foregoing reasons, we see no infirmity
in the order passed by the High Court dismissing the
petition on the ground of want of territorial
jurisdiction. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, however, we leave the
parties to bear their own costs.
5. A Full Bench of Kerala High Court in The Registrar,
Indian Maritime University Versus K.G. Viswanathan and Another;
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034802
CWP-5635-2024 7 2024:PHHC:034802
2014 SCC OnLine Ker 21221 has considered similar issue involved in
the present case. The petitioner therein approached Kerala High Court
challenging the orders passed by disciplinary authorities at Tamil Nadu
on the ground that the orders were communicated to the petitioner at
Kerala, thereby integral part of cause of action arose within the
jurisdiction of Kerala High Court. The petitions came to be dismissed on
the ground that no part of the cause of action has arisen, much less any
integral part of cause of action, in the jurisdiction of Kerala High Court.
The relevant paragraphs read as:-
"5. In Selvin Abraham (supra), the correctness of
which is doubted, while working as Assistant Manager
in the Punjab & Sind Bank at Coimbatore, the
appellant was proceeded against for certain
misconducts. Enquiry was conducted at Coimbatore
and the charges were proved. The Disciplinary
Authority dismissed him from service. This order was
served on him at his native place in Kerala. His
appeal and review were also dismissed. He filed a writ
petition before the Kerala High Court challenging the
order of suspension, dismissal and the orders passed
by the appellate and review authorities. Objection was
raised by the bank that this Court lacked territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the entire
cause of action arose outside the State. This
contention was accepted by the learned single Judge,
relying on the judgment of the Full Bench in Nakul
Deo singh (supra) and the writ petition was
accordingly dismissed.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
52. Since Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) was decided
"in the peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case,
in view of the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034802
CWP-5635-2024 8 2024:PHHC:034802
(supra), we should accept the contention that relief
was granted in Nawal Kishore Sharma, in exercise of
the powers of the Apex Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.
53. Thus, the conclusion is irresistible, that the
principles laid down in Selvin Abraham are contrary,
not only to the Full Bench judgment in Nakul Deo
Singh but also to the Apex Court judgments we have
referred to. As a result, Selvin Abraham does not laid
down good law and therefore, is overruled. The
question referred to the Full Bench is answered as
aforesaid.
54. Coming to the cases that are referred to the Full
Bench, in W.A. 743/14, by Ext.P2 notification issued
by the appellant from Chennai where its head office is
situated, applications were invited to various posts,
including the post of Professor (Management). In
response to the notification, the respondent, who is
presently working as a Professor in the NSS College of
Engineering, Palakkad applied and he was invited for
an interview at Chennai. He appeared for the
interview and was issued Ext.P4 communication from
Chennai, whereby, he was offered the post and was
asked to report at Chennai. He accepted the offer by
Ext.P5 and requested for a posting at the Cochin
campus of the appellant. By Ext.P7 e-mail, he was
informed that his request was accepted and was
requested to report at the head quarters of the
appellant. However, by Ext.P6 e-mail, he was
informed that the offer is kept in abeyance and was
thereafter issued Ext.P1 communication from
Chennai, informing that the offer of appointment was
withdrawn. It was in these circumstances, he filed
W.P. (C) 22184/13 with the following main prayers:
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034802
CWP-5635-2024 9 2024:PHHC:034802
appropriate writ, order or direction calling for
the records leading to the issue of Ext.P-1 and
quash the same;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction
commanding the respondents to allow the
petitioner to join duty as Professor
(Management) as originally ordered in terms of
Exhibit P4 read with Exhibit P7 with all
consequential benefits emanating therefrom;"
55. In so far as W.P. (C) 8678/14 is concerned, since
30.3.2009, the petitioner herein was working as
Branch Manager of Indian Bank at Microsate at
Puducherry. He continued there till 29.4.2010 when he
was transferred and posted to Perinthalmanna, where,
he joined on 1.5.2010. He was later transferred to
Kunnamkulam on 11.7.2011 and while working at
Kunnamkulam, by Ext.P2 order, he was placed under
suspension pending disciplinary action. He was
thereafter issued with Ext.P3 memo of charges
containing various misconducts, all relating to his
tenure at Puducherry and the disciplinary authority
was the Assistant General Manager, Zonal office,
Puducherry, the 4th respondent. Preliminary enquiry
was conducted at the Zonal office, Puducherry on
30.12.2011 and the petitioner participated in the
enquiry. 56. Thereafter, enquiry was also conducted at
the Zonal office, Puducherry in which also, the
petitioner participated. Ext.P4 is the report of the
enquiry that was submitted to the disciplinary
authority. The disciplinary authority, thereafter,
forwarded the enquiry report along with his letter
dated 20.7.2012, which was served on the petitioner
while he was at Palakkad. The petitioner submitted his
objection against the findings of the enquiry officer.
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034802
CWP-5635-2024 10 2024:PHHC:034802
This was considered by the disciplinary authority,
who, thereafter, issued Ext.P5 order dated 26.9.2012,
removing the petitioner from service. This order was
issued from Puducherry and was served on the
petitioner while he was at Palakkad. He filed an
appeal to the General manager, Indian Bank, Chennai
which was rejected and this order was also
communicated to the petitioner at Palakkad. He filed a
review application to the first respondent, the
Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank at
Chennai. That was also rejected by Ext.P9 order
which also was served on the petitioner at Palakkad.It
was in these circumstances, the writ petition was filed
with the following main prayers:
1) To issue Writ in the (nature of) certiorari to
quash Ext.P3, Ext.P4, Ext.P5, Ext.P6 & Ext.P9
as legally unsustainable and violative of Article
14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
2) To issue Writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the 4th respondent to reinstate the
petitioner in service with retrospective effect
from the date of dismissal and grant all other
consequential benefits including arrears of pay,
pay and allowance etc.
3) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the 4th respondent to treat the
period of absence from the date of suspension to
date of reinstatement as duty for all purposes
and grant such other service benefits which
were otherwise entitled to the petitioner
untrammeled by the suspension and subsequent
dismissal from service.
57. Having gone through the pleadings, we do not see
any averment in the writ petitions where the
petitioners have raised any plea as to how the Kerala
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034802
CWP-5635-2024 11 2024:PHHC:034802
High Court has territorial jurisdiction over the cause
of action which led them to file the writ petitions.
Instead, counsel wanted us to infer from the above
pleading that an integral part the cause of action
arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, if
the facts which we have noticed above are evaluated
in the light of the law laid down in Nakul Deo Singh
and the Apex Court judgments, according to us, the
only conclusion that is possible is that no part of the
cause of action, much less any integral part of the
cause of action, has arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court justifying the entertainment
of these writ petitions."
6. A similar question came up for consideration before Division
Bench of this Court in M/s Vijay K. Jairath And Co. Versus Union of
India and Another; CWP No.12420 of 2008 (decided on 01.05.2012).
There was a difference of opinion among the Judges of the Division
Bench, thus, matter was referred to third Judge of this Court. On the basis
of opinion of majority, it was concluded that this Court on the basis of
mere communication has no jurisdiction to entertain writ petition.
7. In view of afore-stated facts and findings, this Court is of the
considered opinion that as no cause of action has arisen within territorial
jurisdiction of this Court, the present petition is not maintainable. The
petitioner is at liberty to avail remedies as permissible by law.
8. Dismissed with liberty as aforesaid.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
12.03.2024
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034802
11 of 11
