9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 728 - HC - Indian LawsTerritorial Jurisdiction - part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court or not - Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - The place of residence or work of petitioner and/or respondent may not be much relevant in determining the jurisdictional aspect. The determinative fact is the place of accrual of cause of action or part of cause of action. This Court can issue directions against the respondents situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court provided part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Apex Court in case of Election Commission Vs. Venkat 1953 (2) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT and subsequent judgments took a view that it was location or residence of the litigant which gave territorial jurisdiction to the High Court under Article 226. The situs of the cause of action being immaterial. It appears that, judgment of the Apex Court propelled, the parliament to amend Article 226 and insert clause 1A by the 15th Amendment 1967 and subsequently renumbered clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution by Constitution's (Forty Second) Amendment Act. The said amendment provided that the High Court within which the cause of action arise wholly or in part would also have jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Seeking employment with Municipal Council, Roha, Dist. Raigad on compassionate ground - HELD THAT - The area of operation of Municipal Council, Roha is limited to Roha taluka. It does not extent beyond Roha taluka. Roha Taluka is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. No part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. As even small fraction of cause of action has not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court would not exercise its territorial jurisdiction. Seeking information under the Right to Information Act with respondent Nos. 4 and 5 - HELD THAT - The office of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is situated at Pune. The appeal filed before the respondent No. 3 is allowed. The same is also situated at Pune. The petitioner seeks directions against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to provide for the information. In the said writ petition also no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petitions need not be entertained - The petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for the same cause of action before appropriate forum possessing territorial jurisdiction - writ petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 2. Whether the Court would exercise territorial jurisdiction. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction Based on Cause of Action: The primary issue is whether part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The petitioners argued that part of the cause of action arose within the Court's jurisdiction as they applied from their places of residence within this jurisdiction. They relied on Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which allows High Courts to issue writs if the cause of action arises wholly or in part within their jurisdiction, even if the respondents are located outside. The Court referred to several precedents, including: - Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India: The Supreme Court held that part of the cause of action arises where the legal right is infringed within the Court's jurisdiction. - Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India: The Court emphasized the necessity of proving material facts, also known as integral facts, for a cause of action. - Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs. R.K. Mishra: The Court stated that even a fraction of the cause of action is sufficient for jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the place of residence or work of the petitioner or respondent is not as relevant as the place where the cause of action arises. 2. Exercise of Territorial Jurisdiction: The Court examined whether it should exercise territorial jurisdiction over the writ petitions. The respondents contended that their offices were beyond the Court's territorial jurisdiction and no part of the cause of action arose within the Court's limits. The Court cited: - VSP Acqua Mist Fire Private Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd.: It was held that mere receipt of communications does not constitute a cause of action. - Shriram Vs. Union of India: The Court emphasized that the location of the respondent's office is crucial in determining jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that under Article 226(2), the High Court can entertain petitions if the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. However, in both writ petitions, the Court found that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. Conclusion: - Writ Petition No. 3719 of 2019: The petitioner sought employment on compassionate grounds from the Municipal Council, Roha, which is beyond the Court's jurisdiction. No part of the cause of action arose within the Court's jurisdiction. - Writ Petition No. 566 of 2020: The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act from respondents based in Pune. Again, no part of the cause of action arose within the Court's jurisdiction. The Court concluded that it would not entertain the writ petitions due to lack of territorial jurisdiction and directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs.
|
