9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the Original Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Determination of the cause of action for filing the writ petitions. Summary: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the Original Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution The primary question in these Original Petitions (O.P. 11321/95 and O.P. 12019/92) was whether the Kerala High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitions were referred to a Division Bench due to conflicting views in prior decisions and the importance of the question involved. The Division Bench, noting apparent conflicts in earlier decisions, referred the matter to a Full Bench. Issue 2: Determination of the cause of action for filing the writ petitions The facts in O.P. 11321/95 involved a petitioner who, while working as a Head Constable, was demoted to Naik after a disciplinary action. The order was served at Bokkaro, and the appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General at Bokkaro. The petitioner received the appellate order while working in Kottayam and filed the petition in the Kerala High Court. The respondents argued that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. Similarly, in O.P. 12019/92, the petitioner, a Constable, was dismissed from service after a disciplinary action. The order was received in New Delhi, and the appeal was dismissed as belated. The appellate order was communicated to the petitioner in Trivandrum, where he filed the petition. The respondents raised the jurisdiction issue, arguing that the cause of action arose outside Kerala. The Full Bench considered whether the communication of the appellate order within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court constituted a part of the cause of action. The Court examined prior decisions and the doctrine of merger, which states that the original order merges into the appellate order, making the appellate order the effective one. The Court referred to Supreme Court decisions, including the landmark rulings in *State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Swaika Properties* and *Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu*, which clarified that the receipt of communication does not constitute a part of the cause of action. The Full Bench concluded that the cause of action arises when the appellate authority dismisses the appeal, not when the order is communicated to the petitioner. The receipt of the order only gives the petitioner a right of action, not a cause of action. Thus, the mere fact that the appellate order was received within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to entertain the petitions. Conclusion: The Full Bench dismissed the Original Petitions on the ground that the Kerala High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain them, as no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. The Court did not address the merits of the contentions raised in the petitions.
|
