9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India. The nomination is to be made by the Government of India pursuant to a selection conducted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, from among eligible applicants. The categories of persons eligible to apply for nomination to the said seats, and the manner in which the applications for the same are to be preferred, are spelt out in Ext. P1 prospectus. The appellant, who appeared at the entrance examination conducted by the 3rd respondent institute and was declared as passed in the said examination, preferred an application for nomination to the central pool seats before the 1st and 2nd respondents who are officials in the designated Ministry of the Government of India. The appellant staked his claim for nomination under the category "Ward of defence personnel" as his father is serving as a 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s arose in Kerala for the purposes of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. He would further point out, that at any rate, insofar as the 3rd respondent institute had no role to play in a decision to be taken on his application for nomination for the central pool seats, the High Court having jurisdiction over the 3rd respondent could not be the court having jurisdiction to entertain a Writ Petition under Art. 226. 4. Per contra, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel would contend that insofar as the decision, on the application preferred by the appellant, was to be taken at Delhi and the matter pertained to admission to an institute in Maharashtra, the courts having jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition would be the High Courts in those States. 5. We have considered the rival contentions on the issue of maintainability of the Writ 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 le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 by the learned author Durga Das Basu in his Commentary on the Constitution of India (8th Edition, 2010), "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." This distinction has also been brought out in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Nakul Deo Singh v Deputy 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. In order to confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Calcutta, NICCO must show that at least a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. That is at best its case in the Writ Petition. 6. It is well settled that the expression "cause of action" means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In Chand Kour v. Partab Singh Lord Wastson said: "....the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a 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 ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f forum conveniens. 8. Lord Esher MR in Read v. Brown - (1888 (22) QBD 128) defined "Cause of action" to mean "every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. It does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved". In the light of this definition, that has withstood the test of time and has been consistently approved and applied in a host of judgments of the Supreme Court, we must now proceed to examine the pleadings in the case before us to find out if the appellant has a cause of action that he can agitate before this Court in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. A perusal of the pleadings, in this case, reveals that the appellant relies on the following facts to contend that he has a cause of action that confers territorial 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 examinati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
