9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (4) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was one Shri Musafit and Shri N. K. Pandey, was the guard, left Mangra Station and reached up Loop Line at Kechki at about 9.10 a.m. It has been stated that because of a fault at the relevant time in the overhead line, token less working between stations from Mangra and Chianki was suspended and paper line clear had been introduced. The petitioner at the material time was working as a Switchman in West Cabin, Kechki. He has stated to have given duly a slot to East Cabin and exchanged private number with the Station Master on duty. After arrival of the concerned train, the petitioner has stated to have gone to point No. 16, which was set for down main line to release the detector so that he could divert the train from up Loop Line to main line after reversing the lever point. The petitioner has alleged that during such operation the train started and he immediately ran with the red flag for stopping the same. The petitioner has also stated that he asked one Shri Babulal, the relieving Switchman, who was present at that time, to show danger signal to the train. But all these attempts failed and the concerned train entered into the sand-hump and the engine was derailed. It is the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the Assistant Operating Superintendent, who was not his appointing authority and certainly inferior in rank than such authority. The petitioner, as mentioned above, has claimed the Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Respondent No. 3, to be his appointing authority. That apart, he has claimed that the Assistant Operating Superintendent had no power or any authority to issue a charge-sheet for major penalty, in view of Railway Board's Circulars. 5. The petitioner, it appears made representations denying the charges and raising the points as aforesaid for consideration. He has stated that he further asked for the Private number sheet and also made a representation for holding proper enquiries for bringing out the truth. However, the Assistant Operating Superintendent, Dhanbad, was appointed the Enquiry Officer in the case and the necessary enquiry by him commenced on 28th Nov. 1974. The enquiry as held, has also been claimed to be contrary to law, practice and procedure, apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice. It has been alleged that although the defence helper of the petitioner was present, yet the petitioner was not allowed entry i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 1975. A plain copy of the said opposition has been kept in the record as the original is not available. Mr. Roychowdhury has of course stated that the original has been filed in the office. The petitioner has also filed his reply to the same. 9. Before dealing with the case on merits and that too on the basis of the pleadings as mentioned above, I think a preliminary point regarding the jurisdiction of this Court, to hear this matter, as taken by Mr. Roychowdhury, should be decided first, as if answer to such point is in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner, then 1 shall not be required to go into the merits of the case. 10. In view of the admitted facts viz. the impugned orders were not passed by any authority who is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, Mr. Roychowdhury, took the preliminary point as mentioned above and contended that this Court will not be competent to decide the case and the issues as involved. There is no doubt that the orders as impeached were passed by the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5, whose offices are outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mrs. Banerjee, appearing in support of the Rule contended that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and find out whether this application is maintainable here in view of the location of the records and those who passed them. 11. Thus, we shall have to find out whether the cause of action or any part thereof has actually accrued or arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Cause of action means the whole of the material facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to allege and prove in order to succeed. As observed in -celebrated decisions; it is not intended to comprise every fact which may be proved in evidence and has no relation to the defence that may be set up. It is synonymous with the right to issue. It should be given its ordinary meaning. In wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit and in a restricted sense, it means circumstances forming the infringement of the right or the occasion for the action. Such cause of action must be antecedent to the institution of the suit. The accrual of a part of the cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of a Court is sufficient to maintain the connected proceeding before it. Thus, the question would be and as argued by Mrs. Banerjee, whether the location of the office of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court, which means that such persons or authority, must be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court, either by residence or location of records within those territories. The above rule has been evolved from the determination starting from the case of K. S. Rashid Sons v. Income-tax Investigation Commission, [1954]25ITR167(SC) and followed thereafter. In terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao, [1953]4SCR1144 which has again been followed in the subsequent determinations, it is essential for the exercise of the power of the High Court under Article 226(1), that the persons or authority to whom the writ is issued, must reside or be located within the jurisdiction of the High Court. On the basis of the judicial pronouncements and the provisions of the Constitution of India, Union of India resides everywhere and as such all High Courts now have jurisdiction to issue writs against Union of India, for the redress of the actions as taken by them. The view as taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao (supra) has been approved a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
