9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Analysis: The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in this case revolved around the issue of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case involved a dispute regarding the award of catering contracts for a railway station. The Divisional Manager of Central Railways invited applications for the catering contract, and the petitioner and the third respondent were among the applicants. The decision favored the third respondent, who was awarded the contract for a period of five years. The petitioner sought to quash these contracts on the ground that the third respondent did not meet the experience criteria. The key question was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The counsel for the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection regarding the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. They argued that the cause of action for the writ petition arose in Jabalpur, which was beyond the territorial bounds of the Allahabad High Court. On the other hand, the petitioner contended that part of the cause of action arose at the Manikpur Railway Station, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. The court delved into the historical perspective of Article 226, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the High Court depends on the effect of the act within its territorial limits rather than the location of the headquarters or capital of the government. The court analyzed the concept of 'cause of action' in detail, citing previous judgments to explain its significance. It highlighted that the location or residence of the respondents determines the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226, irrespective of where the cause of action arises. The court referred to relevant legal principles to elucidate the meaning and scope of 'cause of action' in the context of territorial jurisdiction. It emphasized that the situs of the contract or where the contract is to be performed may not always be an integral part of the cause of action in a writ petition. Ultimately, the court concluded that no part of the cause of action in the present case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. The decision to award the contracts was made in Jabalpur, and the alleged illegality in the contract award did not have a nexus with the place of performance. Therefore, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioner the liberty to seek remedy elsewhere.
|
