Service of order within territorial jurisdiction can establish cause of action for writ petition challenging penalty imposed without hearing

The Calcutta HC held that service of an order or notice can constitute a material part of the cause of action for jurisdictional purposes when it substantially affects the petitioner's rights. The court found that publication of a public notice withdrawing a national award and plaque, which the petitioner first read in Santiniketan, vitally affected his reputation. Since this publication occurred within the court's territorial jurisdiction and was integral to the cause of action, the HC had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the penalty imposed without prior notice or hearing to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition based on territorial jurisdiction.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Impact of public notice on the petitioner's reputation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition Based on Territorial Jurisdiction:
The primary issue was whether the Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The respondents argued that since the decision impugned was taken in New Delhi, no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The petitioner, however, claimed that the publication of the public notice in national newspapers with wide circulation in West Bengal, which affected his reputation locally, conferred jurisdiction on the Calcutta High Court. The court examined whether the publication of the notice and the resultant damage to the petitioner's reputation constituted an integral part of the cause of action. The court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court decisions in State of Rajasthan vs. M/s. Swaika Properties and Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu, to determine that the service of a notice must form an integral part of the cause of action. The court concluded that the public notice was a vital link in the chain of events and that the petitioner's rights were affected within the territorial limits of the Calcutta High Court, thereby conferring jurisdiction on it.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that he was not given any opportunity to explain his position before the decision to withdraw the award was made, which violated the principles of natural justice. The court noted that the petitioner was not served with any communication or notice regarding the proceedings that led to the withdrawal of the award. The court observed that the entire process was vitiated by non-compliance with the principle of natural justice, as the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to be heard before the impugned decision was taken.

3. Impact of Public Notice on the Petitioner's Reputation:
The petitioner argued that the publication of the public notice caused irreparable damage to his reputation. The court acknowledged that the petitioner's reputation was indeed affected by the publication of the notice in widely circulated national newspapers. The court held that the affectation of the petitioner's reputation within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court was a material, essential, and integral part of the cause of action, thereby justifying the maintainability of the writ petition in this court.

Conclusion:
The preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition was overruled. The court held that the Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition based on the publication of the public notice and its impact on the petitioner's reputation within its jurisdiction. The court also recognized the violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the decision to withdraw the award was made. The matter was directed to be listed for further hearing on the merits of the petitioner's claim.

---