2020 (5) TMI 739 - HC - Indian Laws

Doctrine of forum non-conveniens - Territorial jurisdiction of this Court - place of cause of action - It was argued that no cause of action or part of cause of action has accrued to the petitioners within the State of U.P. and merely because the appellate and the revisional order had been communicated to them at their respective home districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, same would not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the writ petitions. HELD THAT - What would constitute a cause of action obviously would depend upon the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can exercise powers to issue direction, order or writs for 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 territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, it can entertain the writ petition to pass orders or directions 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 its territories. 'Cause of action' implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitutes the cause of action. It has been interpreted to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. The question as to whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, has to be decided on the basis of averments in the petition, truth or otherwise thereof, however, would be immaterial. Mere service of notice would not give rise to a cause of action unless service of notice is an integral part of the cause of action. The answer to the question whether service of notice is an integral part of the cause of action within the meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution must depend upon the nature of the impugned order giving rise to the cause of action. In order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition, it must be disclosed that the integral fact pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause so as to empower the Court to decide the matter and the entire or a part of it arose within its jurisdiction - the doctrine forum conveniens has a limited application and the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The reference itself is not merited as there is no conflict of opinion in the decisions referred by the learned Single Judge - Reference disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain writ petitions challenging dismissal orders communicated within its jurisdiction.
2. Conflict of opinions between different judgments regarding territorial jurisdiction.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India to the issue of territorial jurisdiction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The primary issue is whether the Allahabad High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions challenging dismissal orders communicated within its jurisdiction. The petitioners argued that since the dismissal orders were communicated to them at their home districts in Uttar Pradesh, the High Court has jurisdiction. Conversely, the respondents contended that the orders were issued and communicated outside Uttar Pradesh, and thus the appropriate forums are the Gauhati High Court or the Jabalpur High Court.

The Full Bench in Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India and the Division Bench in Constable Lalji Pandey held that mere communication of the dismissal order at the residential address does not confer territorial jurisdiction. It was emphasized that the cause of action must arise within the territorial limits of the court, and the mere residence of the petitioner is insufficient.

2. Conflict of Opinions Between Judgments:
The learned Single Judge noted a conflict between the Full Bench judgment in Rajendra Kumar Mishra and the Division Bench judgment in Constable Lalji Pandey on one hand, and the Division Bench judgments in Bibhuti Narain Singh and Har Govind Singh on the other. The latter judgments relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Nawal Kishore Sharma, which suggested that communication of an order at the petitioner’s residence could confer jurisdiction.

The Full Bench in Rajendra Kumar Mishra clarified that the Chief of Army Staff could only be sued either at Delhi or where the cause of action arises. Similarly, in Constable Lalji Pandey, it was held that communication of dismissal orders at the residential address does not constitute a cause of action within the High Court's jurisdiction.

3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Decision in Nawal Kishore Sharma:
The Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma held that even a fraction of the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of a High Court is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The case involved an appellant who was declared unfit for sea service and received communication at his home in Bihar. The Supreme Court found that part of the cause of action arose in Bihar, thus conferring jurisdiction on the Patna High Court.

However, the Full Bench in the present case clarified that the decision in Nawal Kishore Sharma was based on the peculiar facts of that case. It emphasized that each case must be decided based on its specific facts and the nature of the cause of action. The Full Bench reiterated that mere communication of an order at the petitioner’s residence does not automatically confer jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded that there is no conflict between the judgments of the Full Bench in Rajendra Kumar Mishra and the Division Bench in Constable Lalji Pandey with the Supreme Court’s decision in Nawal Kishore Sharma. The law is well-settled that the cause of action must arise within the territorial limits of the court. The reference to the Larger Bench was deemed unnecessary, and the individual writ petitions and special appeals were to be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal in light of the clarified legal position.