Court Declines Jurisdiction in Writ Petitions - Seek Relief from Proper Forum

The Court determined that in both Writ Petition No. 3719 of 2019 and Writ Petition No. 566 of 2020, no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. As a result, the Court declined to entertain the petitions, advising the petitioners to seek relief from the proper forum. The petitions were disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Whether the Court would exercise territorial jurisdiction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction Based on Cause of Action:
The primary issue is whether part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The petitioners argued that part of the cause of action arose within the Court's jurisdiction as they applied from their places of residence within this jurisdiction. They relied on Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which allows High Courts to issue writs if the cause of action arises wholly or in part within their jurisdiction, even if the respondents are located outside.

The Court referred to several precedents, including:
- Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India: The Supreme Court held that part of the cause of action arises where the legal right is infringed within the Court's jurisdiction.
- Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India: The Court emphasized the necessity of proving material facts, also known as integral facts, for a cause of action.
- Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs. R.K. Mishra: The Court stated that even a fraction of the cause of action is sufficient for jurisdiction.

The Court concluded that the place of residence or work of the petitioner or respondent is not as relevant as the place where the cause of action arises.

2. Exercise of Territorial Jurisdiction:
The Court examined whether it should exercise territorial jurisdiction over the writ petitions. The respondents contended that their offices were beyond the Court's territorial jurisdiction and no part of the cause of action arose within the Court's limits.

The Court cited:
- VSP Acqua Mist Fire Private Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd.: It was held that mere receipt of communications does not constitute a cause of action.
- Shriram Vs. Union of India: The Court emphasized that the location of the respondent's office is crucial in determining jurisdiction.

The Court reiterated that under Article 226(2), the High Court can entertain petitions if the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. However, in both writ petitions, the Court found that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
- Writ Petition No. 3719 of 2019: The petitioner sought employment on compassionate grounds from the Municipal Council, Roha, which is beyond the Court's jurisdiction. No part of the cause of action arose within the Court's jurisdiction.
- Writ Petition No. 566 of 2020: The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act from respondents based in Pune. Again, no part of the cause of action arose within the Court's jurisdiction.

The Court concluded that it would not entertain the writ petitions due to lack of territorial jurisdiction and directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs.

---