9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... force 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 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Command Aviation Officer 11 in the Indian Navy. While the application preferred by the appellant yielded no response from the 1st and 2nd respondents, he was also informed that the respondents were proposing to finalise a select list by adopting criteria that were contrary to those specified in Ext. P1 prospectus. This led the appellant to prefer the Writ Petition seeking a 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. 2. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge on the issue of maintainability. The relevant portion of the judgment of the learned single Judge reads as follows: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail as also the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. After going through the pleadings and proceedings, this Court finds that the petitioner, if at all aggrieved as to the course and proceeding, has necessarily to approach the concerned Court having jurisdiction over the third respondent. Territorial jurisdiction of this Court does not extend to grant any relief to the petitioner in this case. The Writ Petition is dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Petition. Essentially what is to be determined in the instant case is whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a Writ Petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the reliefs prayed for are against persons or authorities who are situated in places outside the territorial limits of the State of Kerala. The legislative history of Art. 226 would reveal that in terms of the provision, as it stood prior to its amendment in 1963 vide the Constitution (15th Amendment) Act, 1963, a High Court could not issue a writ or order under the provision unless the person, authority or Government against whom the writ was sought was physically resident or located within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. It was pursuant to the amendment in 1963 that Clause (1A) (which was subsequently re-numbered as Clause (2) by the Constitution (42nd Amendment), 1976) provided that if the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court it may issue a writ against a Government, authority or person resident within the jurisdiction of another High Court. Article 226(2) of the Constitution reads as follows: [226. Power of Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eputy Commandant (1999 (3) KLT 629(F.B.)). 7. The term cause of action has been the subject matter of judicial exposition in a number of judgments of the Supreme Court as also the Full Bench decision of this Court referred to above. The interpretation of the term has been rendered in the context of its usage in Art. 226 of the Constitution and, in doing so, reliance has also been placed on the interpretation of the term for the purposes of the Code of Civil Procedure. A brief survey of some of the important judgments of the Supreme Court may be apposite at this stage. (i) In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 711 - the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the issue of whether a Company situated in Calcutta could challenge a decision taken by a tender committee in connection with the award of a contract for setting up a Kerosene Recovery Processing Unit in Gujarat. The tender committee functioned in New Delhi and the contention raised by the Calcutta Company was that insofar as it had come to know of the tender within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta, had responded to the tender therefrom and had demanded justice from the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion in his favour. Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a Writ Petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. Therefore, the question whether in the instant case the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Writ Petition in question even on the facts alleged must depend upon whether the averments made in paragraphs 5, 7, 18, 22, 26 and 43 are sufficient in law to establish that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. (ii) In Union of India Ors. v Adani Exports Ltd. Anr. ((2002) 1 SCC 567) - the Supreme Court repelled a contention that the mere existence of the registered office of a Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l jurisdiction on this High Court. (i) The appellant is a person who is residing in Tellicherry, in Kerala; (ii) He applied to the 3rd respondent institute for selection to the MBBS Course, from Tellicherry, Kerala and the hall ticket enabling him to write the entrance examination was received by him in Tellicherry. (iii) His application before the 1st and 2nd respondents, for nomination to the Central Pool seats, was also preferred from Tellicherry. (iv) The non-communication of any decision, as also the effect of any adverse decision against him, would affect his rights in Tellicherry, where he resided. It is on the basis of the said 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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
