9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation Reports lodged against the respondent. The factual backdrop of the case relevant for the present proceedings may be stated thus ; The respondent who is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service was officiating as Collector, Daman, as the regular incumbent was on leave and he continued as In-charge Collector from October, 1992 to April 1993. He was transferred to Arunachal Pradesh in March, 1994. Prior to the transfer of the respondent, three First Information Reports were lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBJ) on 29.9.1993 which were numbered as RC 64(A)/93-BOM, RC 65(A}/93-BOM and RC 66(A)/93-BOM containing allegations, inter alia, that the respondent and one Tapas Neogi, Architect and Town Planner, Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause of action for filing the writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition filed in the Gauhati High Court was maintainable under Article 226(2) of the Constitution. On merits of the case, the learned Single Judge relied on the averments, in the writ petition. As noted earlier, the writ petition was allowed. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Division Bench was dismissed at the motion stage. Therefore, the present appeal by the C.B.I. The thrust of the submissions made by Ms. K. Amareshwari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant was that the High Court of Gauhati had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition since no part of the cause of action for filing the case arose within the territorial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court. In view of what has been fairly stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent, it is not necessary for us to enter into merits of the case, suffice it to say that on the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the Gauhati High Court was clearly' in error in deciding the question of jurisdiction in favour of the respondent. In our considered view, the writ petition filed by the respondent in the Gauhati High Court was not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge and the judgment of the Division Bench confirming the same are quashed. It goes without saying that in any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
