2014 (6) TMI 1081 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of the Writ Petition - Territorial jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court u/s 226 of the Constitution of India - seeking direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to finalise the select list of nominees to the central pool seats in accordance with Ext. P1 prospectus - cause of action Or right of action . HELD THAT - A Writ Petition seeking reliefs against the Central Government can be maintained before the High Court of Kerala only in a case where the cause of action, in respect of which relief is sought, arises wholly or in part, within the jurisdictional limits of the Kerala High Court. It must, at once, be noted that the words used in Art. 226(2) are cause of action and not right of action . The distinction between the two terms is important because it helps one to understand the import of the term cause of action . As noted, the two terms are neither synonymous nor interchangeable. A right of action arises as soon as there is an invasion of aright. A right of action is a right to enforce a cause of action. A person residing anywhere in the country, being aggrieved by an order of the Government, Central or State, or authority or person, may have aright of action in law, but the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 can be invoked only when the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction, either wholly or partially. It is on the basis of the facts that the appellant seeks directions against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are authorities of the Central Government, to consider his application for nomination to the central pool seats for admission to the 3rd respondent institute. The decision to be taken by the 1st and 2nd respondents is essentially one that will determine the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of a nomination to the central pool seats. The right that is urged by the appellant is, therefore, a right to a fair consideration of his candidature for nomination, in his capacity as a ward of defence personnel . We do not think there is any fact, having a nexus to the territorial limits of jurisdiction of this court, which the appellant would have to prove in order to establish his right to a fair consideration of his candidature for nomination. The decision is one that the 1st and 2nd respondents would have to take in New Delhi, where they are situated, and based on relevant material made available to them by the appellant. Thus, the appellant would have to approach the High Court in New Delhi for agitating his rights under Art. 226 of the Constitution. We are of the view that no cause of action, either wholly or in part, arises within the jurisdictional limits of this Court in the instant case. The appeal therefore fails, and it is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition.
2. Territorial jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court u/s 226 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Writ Petition
The appellant, a candidate who appeared for the pre-medical entrance examination conducted by the 3rd respondent institute, sought nomination to the central pool seats reserved for nominees of the Government of India. The appellant's application for nomination under the category "Ward of defence personnel" yielded no response, leading him to file a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to finalize the select list of nominees in accordance with the prospectus. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge on the issue of maintainability, stating that the petitioner must approach the concerned Court having jurisdiction over the 3rd respondent.

Issue 2: Territorial Jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court u/s 226 of the Constitution of India
The appellant contended that the Kerala High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition u/s 226 of the Constitution, as his application was preferred from Kerala and he was a resident of Kerala. He argued that the non-communication of any decision on his application would affect his rights in Kerala, thus a part of his cause of action arose in Kerala. The respondents argued that the decision on the application was to be taken in Delhi and pertained to admission to an institute in Maharashtra, thus the High Courts in those States had jurisdiction.

The Court examined the legislative history and judicial interpretations of "cause of action" u/s 226(2) of the Constitution. It noted that a High Court could issue a writ if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arose within its territorial jurisdiction. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments to elucidate the term "cause of action" and concluded that the appellant's right to a fair consideration of his candidature for nomination did not establish a cause of action within the territorial limits of the Kerala High Court. The decision to be taken by the 1st and 2nd respondents was to be made in New Delhi, and thus, the appellant would have to approach the High Court in New Delhi for relief.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the Court holding that no cause of action, either wholly or in part, arose within the jurisdictional limits of the Kerala High Court. The appellant was directed to approach the appropriate Court for appropriate relief. No costs were awarded.