Territorial Jurisdiction Clarified: Cause of Action Key

The Full Bench held that the reference was maintainable despite the challenge, rejecting the preliminary objection raised. It clarified that territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court's Benches should be determined based on the cause of action, not the location of the Court passing the order. The expression "cases arising in such areas in Oudh" under the Amalgamation Order, 1948, was interpreted to focus on the cause of action, not the location of the Special Judge's Court. The matters were remitted for decision on merits, emphasizing the need to follow the Supreme Court's interpretation in Nasiruddin's case.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Maintainability of the reference.
2. Determination of territorial jurisdiction of the two Benches of Allahabad High Court.
3. Interpretation of the expression "cases arising in such areas in Oudh" under Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the reference:
The reference to the Full Bench was challenged by Sri Anurag Khanna on grounds that the reference order was bad in law. He argued that Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. had already affirmed the opinion of Hon'ble R.D. Khare, J., making further reference unnecessary. He cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (2) SCC 673, emphasizing that a Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree with a larger quorum. However, the Full Bench found that the reference was maintainable, noting that the earlier Division Bench judgment in Baldeo Ram and another v. Deputy Commissioner, Gonda and another, AIR 1959 (All) 460 (DB), which took a contrary view, had escaped notice. Thus, the preliminary objection was rejected.

2. Determination of territorial jurisdiction of the two Benches of Allahabad High Court:
The Full Bench examined the historical context and legal framework governing the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court's Principal Bench and the Lucknow Bench. It emphasized that the jurisdiction must be decided based on the provisions of Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948, and relevant Supreme Court judgments, particularly Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 2 SCC 671. The Full Bench concluded that the jurisdiction should be determined by the place where the cause of action arises, not merely the location of the Court passing the impugned order. It held that the interpretation by the Division Benches in Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma and Sanjay Somani, which focused on the location of the Court, was incorrect.

3. Interpretation of the expression "cases arising in such areas in Oudh" under Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948:
The Full Bench reiterated that the expression "cases arising in such areas in Oudh" should be interpreted based on the cause of action. It affirmed that a criminal case arises where the offence is committed or as otherwise provided in the Cr.P.C. The Full Bench rejected the view that the location of the Special Judge's Court determines the jurisdiction, emphasizing that the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court's Benches cannot be altered by notifications issued under the Prevention of Corruption Act or Cr.P.C.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded that the Division Benches in Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma and Sanjay Somani did not lay down the correct law. The matters were remitted to the learned Single Judge for decision on merits. The territorial jurisdiction of the two Benches must be decided based on the cause of action as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Nasiruddin's case.

---