Narinder Kumar vs Union Of India And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 6617 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Narinder Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 22 March, 2024

Author: G.S. Sandhawalia

Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia

                             Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041802-DB




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                           Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:041802 -DB

(103)                                             LPA-340-2024 (O&M)
                                                  Decided on : 22.03.2024

Narinder Kumar

                                                                  ......Appellant(s)
                                         Versus

Union of India and others

                                                              ......Respondent(s)


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
        ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:     Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for the appellant (s).

             Mr. Sandeep Bhatia, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI.

                *****

G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

CM-795-LPA-2024 Application for condonation of delay of 84 days in re-filing the appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly supported by affidavit. Delay of 84 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

CM-794-LPA-2024 Application for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly supported by affidavit of the appellant. Delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

LPA-340-2024

Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of the

order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.08.2023 passed in CWP-17119-

2018 filed by the appellant, wherein the Learned Single Judge has dismissed

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041802-DB

LPA-340-2024 (O&M) -2-

the writ petition on the ground of maintainability as cause of action has not

arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, liberty was granted

by the Learned Single Judge to avail remedies as permissible by law. Reliance

was placed upon the earlier judgment passed in CWP No.8829 of 2021

'Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India and others' decided on 26.07.2023.

2. A perusal of the writ petition would go on to show that challenge

as such was raised to the order dated 13.08.2000 (Annexure P-3) wherein the

Summary Security Force Court had sentenced the appellant for one year and

also directed that he be dismissed from service, on account of the allegations

of an attempt to commit rape and molestation. The incident as such had

occurred in the State of West Bengal, where the appellant was serving being

employed with the Border Security Force as a Constable. The sentence was

further reduced by the Director General, Border Security Force to six months,

vide order dated 08.12.2000 (Annexure P-5). Apparently, the appellant has

also undergone the said period. Challenge is, thus, raised only to the dismissal

from service.

3. In the reply filed on behalf of the Union of India, it has been

averred that the writ petition also filed before the High Court of Delhi, which

was later withdrawn and the earlier cases were dismissed by the High Court of

Calcutta.

4. In the case of Manoj Kumar (supra), the Learned Single Judge

had relied upon a judgment of two Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Nawal

Kishore Vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 9 SCC 329, apart from the

Full Bench judgment of Allahbad High Court in Manish Kumar Mishra Vs.

Union of India and others, 2020 SCC Online ALL 535 and similarly a Full

Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in The Registrar, India Maritime

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041802-DB

LPA-340-2024 (O&M) -3-

University Vs. K.G. Viswanathan and another, 2014 SCC Online Ker

21221 and also a judgment of Coordinate Bench passed in CWP No.12420 of

2008 'M/s Vijay K. Jairath and Co. Vs. Union of India and another'

decided on 01.05.2012, to come to the conclusion that in the absence of any

part of cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, no

ground had been made out to entertain the writ petition.

5. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that

there is no plausible reason to take a contrary view to the view taken by the

Learned Single Judge and neither the counsel has demonstrated that any cause

of action arose here. Merely because the appellant is having a local address

being resident of State of Punjab would not as such give us a reason to hold

that this Court would have jurisdiction. Resultantly, there is no merit in the

present appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

(LAPITA BANERJI) 22.03.2024 JUDGE Naveen

Whether speaking/reasoned : √Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes √No

3 of 3