Nawal Kishore Nagar S/O Shri Amar ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 901 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

         D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1609/2019

                                      in

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19015/2018

Shivkaran Singh Bhukhar S/o Shri Bhagwana Ram Bhukar, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o C-258, Kardhani, Kalwar Road, Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                  Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Tribal Area
       Development Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
       Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     The Director, Sanitation Water And Community Health
       Project, T.R.I. Campus, Ashok Nagar, Udaipur (Raj.)
3.     The Commissioner, Tribal Area Development Department
       And President Sanitation Water And Community Health
       Project, Jaipur (Raj.)
4.     The Project Manager, Sanitation Water And Community
       Health Project, 25, Alkapuri, Udaipur (Raj.)
5.     Project Officer, Sanitation Water And Community Health
       Project, Shahbad District Baran (Raj.)
                                                               ----Respondents

Connected With D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1605/2019 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2176/2018 Nawal Kishore Nagar S/o Shri Amar Lal Nagar, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Gigcha, Post Badipura, Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran (Raj.).

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Tribal Area Development Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Director, Sanitation Water And Community Health Project, Udaipur (Raj.)

3. The Commissioner, Tribal Area Development Department

(2 of 6) [SAW-1609/2019]

And President Sanitation Water And Community Health Project, Udaipur (Raj).

4. The Project Manager, Sanitation Water And Community Health Project, Badi Road, Hawala Khurd, Udaipur (Raj.)

5. Project Officer, Sanitation Water And Community Health Project, Shahbad District Baran (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, Advocate through video conferencing For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Meena, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Bhanu Sharma, Advocate Mr. Prateek Mathur, Advocate with Mr. Karan Audichya, Advocate through video conferencing

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

Order

29/01/2021

Vide this order above two appeals would be disposed of,

as they involve common question in law.

Appellants have filed the appeals challenging the order

passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, their writ petitions

were dismissed with liberty to file fresh before Principal Seat of

this Court at Jodhpur.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that

so far as appellant Shivkaran Singh Bhukhar is concerned, he was

working at Jaipur, whereas, appellant Nawal Kishore Nagar was

working at Baran district under the respondents. Hence, Jaipur

Bench of this Court had the jurisdiction to hear the writ petitions.

Learned State Counsel has submitted that the writ

petitions were maintainable at Jaipur Bench of this Court.

(3 of 6) [SAW-1609/2019]

Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 has

submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was

liable to be upheld, as the lis involved in the present case relates

to Udaipur and the writ petition would lie at Principal Seat of this

Court at Jodhpur.

Appellants had filed the writ petitions claiming

regularization of their services. It is the case of the appellants that

State of Rajasthan had floated scheme of Sanitation Water and

Community Health Project (SWACH) in the year 1986 under the

Department of Tribal Area Development. Appellant Shivkaran

Singh Bhukhar was appointed on the post of Agriculture Specialist

on ad-hoc basis under Project Officer, Sanitation Project, Jaipur

and is working there since 8.1.1999. So far as appellant Nawal

Kishore Nagar is concerned, he was appointed as Supervisor vide

order dated 8.9.1990 and is working under Project Officer,

SWACH, Baran. Hence, the appellants claimed that they were

entitled for regularization of their services.

Thus, the appellants are working within the territorial

jurisdiction of this Court, Bench at Jaipur.

As per Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 226 to issue

directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person

may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in

relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly

or in part, arises. Thus, an aggrieved person can invoke

extraordinary writ jurisdiction of a High Court where the cause of

action, in whole or part, has arisen.

                                                   (4 of 6)                    [SAW-1609/2019]



             Hon'ble        Supreme          Court           in   the   case      of     Indian

Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia & Anr,

(2015) 10 SCC 161, has held as under:

"17. Accrual of cause of action is a sine qua non for a suit to be filed. Cause of action is a bundle of facts which is required to be proved to grant relief to the plaintiff. Cause of action not only refers to the infringement but also the material facts on which right is founded. Section 20 CPC recognises the territorial jurisdiction of the courts inter alia where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. It has to be decided in each case whether cause of action wholly or in part arises at a particular place, as held by this Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Assn. v. Union of India. Thus, a plaintiff can also file a suit where the cause of action wholly or in part arises."

It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Shanti Devi alias Shanti Mishra vs. Union of India

& Ors, (2020) 10 SCC 766, as under:-

"20. This Court had occasion to consider the cause of action in the context of Article 226 of the Constitution and has explained the expression "cause of action" in a large number of cases. We may refer to a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in ONGC v. Utpal kumar Basu, where in paras 5 and 6 following has been laid down:- (SCC pp. 716-17) "5. Clause (1) of Article 226 begins with a non obstante clause -- notwithstanding anything in Article 32 -- and provides that every High Court shall have power 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction', to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, "within those territories" directions, orders or writs, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. Under clause (2) of Article 226 the High Court may exercise its power conferred by clause (1) if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territory over which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. On a plain reading of the aforesaid two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution it becomes clear that a High Court can exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. In order to confer jurisdiction on

(5 of 6) [SAW-1609/2019]

the High Court of Calcutta, NICCO must show that at least a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. That is at best its case in the writ petition.

6. It is well settled that the expression "cause of action" means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In Chand Kour v. Partab Singh Lord Watson said: (IA pp. 157-58) '... the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.' Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition.

Therefore, the question whether in the instant case the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition in question even on the facts alleged must depend upon whether the averments made in paras 5, 7, 18, 22, 26 and 43 are sufficient in law to establish that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court."

21. This Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra, had occasion to consider territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226(2). Dealing with constitutional amendment made in Article 226(2), this Court laid down the following in para 37:(SCC p. 653) "37. The object of the amendment by inserting clause (2) in the article was to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court in Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao and to restore the view held by the High Courts in the decisions cited above. Thus the power conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which 'the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises' and it is no matter that the seat of the authority concerned is outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High Court. The amendment is thus aimed at widening the width of the area for reaching the writs issued by different High Courts."

(6 of 6) [SAW-1609/2019]

In the present case, appellant Shivkaran Singh Bhukhar

is working under the Project Officer, Sanitation Project, Jaipur,

whereas appellant Nawal Kishore Nagar is working under Project

Officer, SWACH, Baran. Cause of action can be said to have arisen

to the appellants within the jurisdiction of this Court, Bench at

Jaipur, as the appellants Shivkaran Singh Bhukar and Nawal

Kishore Nagar are working for the last many years at Jaipur and

Baran, respectively.

In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge fell

in error in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants on

the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. Consequently, the

impugned orders dated 26.9.2019 and 18.10.2019 are set aside.

The petitions are restored to their original number for adjudication

before the learned Single Judge. Office is directed to list the

petitions before the learned Single Judge on 1.3.2021.

                                    (MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J                                             (SABINA),J

                                   Anil Makwana /65-66









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)