9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter referred to as the Act , was posted in Port Blair in Andaman and Nicobar Islands as the Base Victualing Officer with responsibility of supplying dry and fresh rations to troops of the Army, Navy and Air Force and their families positioned in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Ext.Pl charge-sheet was issued on different counts relatable to discharge of his duties and responsibilities in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. By Ext.P2, he was found guilty of six out of seven charges, following trial by Court Marital at Port Blair. He was relieved from Naval Service immediately thereafter. After remitting the fine imposed on him, he submitted a petition before the Judge Advocate General seeking judicial review. He was, thereafter, advised by order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record in their personal capacity. 5. The power conferred by Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises, for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. This is the content of Clause (2) of Article 226. This means that the writ petition challenging the decisions contained in Exts.P2, P4 and P8 could be entertained by this Court only if, at least; a part of the cause of action in relation to the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause of action. Following the aforesaid decisions, the Division Bench of this Court has reiterated in Capt. B.S. Prakash v. Food Corporation of India and Ors. ILR 2007 Ker. 73 that merely because the decision on the departmental appeal by a delinquent employee is communicated to him while he works within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court, cause of action cannot be treated to arise, even partly, within the territories falling within the jurisdiction of that Court, to sustain a writ petition on the strength of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. 7. Bearing the aforesaid in mind, it has to be noted that the acts of commission and omissions attributed to the petitioner were those in relation to discharge of his duties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was placed in Cochin at the time of initiation of the proceedings, does not, in any manner, confer jurisdiction on this Court by treating that a part of the cause of action in relation to the case has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 9. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that by the entertainment of his earlier writ petition and the issuance of Ext.P3 judgment, the respondents are precluded from raising the question of jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction in the case in hand is not that the petitioner has a better among different forums to choose but that this Court does not have jurisdiction at all. The mere entertainment of the earlier writ petition does not conclude the issue on the question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
