9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition regarding remarks made by a Minister in a different territory.
Summary: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and act upon his representation regarding remarks made by a Minister. The petitioner alleged that the Minister made remarks against certain individuals at Puducherry and Madurantakam. However, the affidavit did not mention Madurantakam, and only the newspaper cutting referred to remarks made at Puducherry. The High Court at Madurai was established under the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, with territorial jurisdiction over certain districts. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is based on the cause of action, which must be substantial. The Court cited precedents to highlight the importance of the place of accrual of the cause of action in determining jurisdiction. The Court referred to a Full Bench decision emphasizing that even a small part of the cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction may not compel the Court to decide on the merit. The Court stressed the need for necessary averments disclosing a cause of action for the Court to entertain a matter. It reiterated that a Court cannot assume jurisdiction it does not possess, as lack of jurisdiction renders any action taken null and void. In this case, the Court found that the remarks were made in Puducherry, outside its territorial jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition due to lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the competent Court if advised. A request for Special Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected due to the undisputed jurisdiction limit.
|
