2014 (8) TMI 994 - SC - Indian Laws

Want of territorial jurisdiction - entitlement to receive disability compensation which becomes payable only in case a seaman becomes incapacitated as a result of the injury - whether the Patna High Court is correct in taking the view that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition? - Held that - Considering the entire facts of the case narrated hereinbefore including the interim order passed by the High Court in our considered opinion the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. As noticed above at the time when the writ petition was heard for the purpose of grant of interim relief the respondents instead of raising any objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction opposed the prayer on the ground that the writ petitioner- appellant was offered an amount of Rs. 2.75 lakhs but he refused to accept the same and challenged the order granting severance compensation by filing the writ petition. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. In the aforesaid the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for deciding the writ petition on merits.

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of Patna High Court.
2. Interpretation of Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Cause of Action and its components.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of Patna High Court:
The primary issue was whether the Patna High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant, a seaman, was declared permanently unfit for sea service due to dilated cardiomyopathy and sought disability compensation. The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that no cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined whether the communications and actions taken at the appellant's residence in Bihar constituted a part of the cause of action.

2. Interpretation of Article 226 of the Constitution:
The Court analyzed Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly Clause (2), which allows a High Court to issue writs if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial jurisdiction. The Court referred to several precedents to interpret the term "cause of action" and its application under Article 226. The Court emphasized that even a small fraction of the cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is sufficient for it to entertain a writ petition.

3. Cause of Action and its Components:
The Court discussed the concept of "cause of action" as a bundle of facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove to succeed in the suit. The Court cited various cases to illustrate that the cause of action must have a nexus with the lis involved in the case. The Court noted that the appellant's communications and the rejection of his claims at his residence in Bihar constituted a part of the cause of action, thereby giving the Patna High Court jurisdiction.

Detailed Analysis:

Territorial Jurisdiction:
The appellant, after being declared unfit for sea service, settled in Gaya, Bihar, and communicated with the respondents from there regarding his financial claims. The respondents' rejection of his claims was communicated to his address in Bihar. The Supreme Court observed that these communications and the appellant's residence in Bihar provided a fraction of the cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court.

Interpretation of Article 226:
The Court examined the original and amended provisions of Article 226, noting that the amendment allowed High Courts to issue writs if the cause of action arises within their jurisdiction, even if the person or authority is outside their territorial limits. The Court referred to several landmark judgments, including *Election Commission, India vs. Saka Venkata Rao* and *K.S. Rashid and Son vs. Income Tax Investigation Commission*, to illustrate the evolution of the interpretation of Article 226.

Cause of Action:
The Court elaborated on the term "cause of action," emphasizing that it is a bundle of facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the suit. The Court cited cases like *State of Rajasthan vs. M/s Swaika Properties* and *Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu* to explain that the mere service of notice or communication at a particular place can constitute a part of the cause of action, giving the High Court jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the appellant's receipt of the rejection letter in Bihar and his subsequent communications from Bihar were integral parts of the cause of action.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Patna High Court's order and remitting the matter back to the High Court for a decision on merits. The Court held that the writ petition should not have been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, as a part of the cause of action did arise within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. The interim order directing the payment of Rs. 2.75 lakhs to the appellant was also noted, emphasizing that the respondents had participated in the proceedings without initially raising the jurisdictional objection.

Final Judgment:
The appeal was allowed, the impugned order of the Patna High Court was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for a decision on merits.

← Previous Next →