9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Principal Bench to entertain the writ petition. 2. Interpretation of Article 226 of the Constitution regarding territorial jurisdiction. 3. Role of the High Court registry in scrutinizing writ petitions. Summary: Territorial Jurisdiction of the Principal Bench: The primary issue was whether the Principal Bench at Bangalore had the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition when there is a provision to file it at the Circuit Bench at Gulbarga. The petitioner, a resident of Bidar District, challenged his suspension order before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) in Bangalore. The Tribunal dismissed his application, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition at the Principal Bench in Bangalore. The office raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition at the Principal Bench, suggesting it should be filed at the Gulbarga Bench. Interpretation of Article 226: The judgment extensively discussed the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Article 226 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution. It was noted that the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 depends on whether the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial jurisdiction. The judgment cited several Supreme Court decisions to elucidate 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 writ petition. Role of the High Court Registry: The judgment clarified that the High Court registry does not have the authority to decide the maintainability of a writ petition based on territorial jurisdiction. It is the prerogative of the Judge or Judges hearing the matter to determine whether the jurisdiction of the Court is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action. The registry can only bring the issue to the notice of the learned Judge through a note in the order sheet but cannot compel the petitioner or his advocate to take back the papers and present them before another Bench. Conclusion: The Court overruled the office objection, holding that the writ petition filed before the Principal Bench at Bangalore was maintainable. The petitioner had the choice to file the writ petition either at the Principal Bench or the Gulbarga Bench, as part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench. The judgment emphasized that the registry's role is limited to listing the writ petition before the Court for preliminary hearing, and it is the learned Judge who has the jurisdiction to decide the question of maintainability.
|
