2014 (7) TMI 1386 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenge to public notice imposing penalty - withdrawal of national award including plaque and recovery of award money and information thereof to the public, without being called upon to participate in any proceedings that might have been drawn up - HELD THAT - To hold that service of an order or a notice on the addressee would never give rise to a cause of action to move the Court within whose territorial limits the order/notice is received, may not be reasonably sound. If service of an order or a notice is an event of substance i.e. an event which is a material, essential or integral part of the lis connected with the action that is impugned in a writ petition, there is no plausible reason as to why the same should not be construed as constituting a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. The plea of affectation of right or interest by reason of such order/notice being served, if based on a substantial fact forming a part of the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action, would indeed be relevant for determination of the question as to whether the writ petition ought to be entertained or not. Here, the decision to withdraw the award and the plaque from the petitioner was never communicated to him prior to the public notice being published in the print media and it is such publication, the only one in the series to make the public aware of the penalty imposed on the petitioner, that vitally affects the reputation and respect that he has earned over the years. Such affectation having taken place in Santiniketan, where the petitioner alleges he read the public notice for the first time and derived knowledge of the impugned decision of the Akademi (there being no material at least at this stage that the decision was formally served on the petitioner in any territory beyond West Bengal prior to the public notice being published), it is an integral, essential and material part of the lis constituting the cause of action to approach the Court and conferring jurisdiction on this Court to entertain the writ petition. The fact that the petitioners before the Allahabad High Court withdrew their writ petitions with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court is absolutely irrelevant and immaterial for a decision on the preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition. The decision to withdraw the award and the plaque were taken behind the petitioner's back - no interim protection is required and granted at this stage.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition based on territorial jurisdiction.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Impact of public notice on the petitioner's reputation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition Based on Territorial Jurisdiction:
The primary issue was whether the Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The respondents argued that since the decision impugned was taken in New Delhi, no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The petitioner, however, claimed that the publication of the public notice in national newspapers with wide circulation in West Bengal, which affected his reputation locally, conferred jurisdiction on the Calcutta High Court. The court examined whether the publication of the notice and the resultant damage to the petitioner's reputation constituted an integral part of the cause of action. The court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court decisions in State of Rajasthan vs. M/s. Swaika Properties and Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu, to determine that the service of a notice must form an integral part of the cause of action. The court concluded that the public notice was a vital link in the chain of events and that the petitioner's rights were affected within the territorial limits of the Calcutta High Court, thereby conferring jurisdiction on it.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that he was not given any opportunity to explain his position before the decision to withdraw the award was made, which violated the principles of natural justice. The court noted that the petitioner was not served with any communication or notice regarding the proceedings that led to the withdrawal of the award. The court observed that the entire process was vitiated by non-compliance with the principle of natural justice, as the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to be heard before the impugned decision was taken.

3. Impact of Public Notice on the Petitioner's Reputation:
The petitioner argued that the publication of the public notice caused irreparable damage to his reputation. The court acknowledged that the petitioner's reputation was indeed affected by the publication of the notice in widely circulated national newspapers. The court held that the affectation of the petitioner's reputation within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court was a material, essential, and integral part of the cause of action, thereby justifying the maintainability of the writ petition in this court.

Conclusion:
The preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition was overruled. The court held that the Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition based on the publication of the public notice and its impact on the petitioner's reputation within its jurisdiction. The court also recognized the violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the decision to withdraw the award was made. The matter was directed to be listed for further hearing on the merits of the petitioner's claim.