Calcutta HC Confirms Territorial Jurisdiction for Writ Petition; Case Remanded for Merits Review, No Cost Order Issued.

The Calcutta HC held that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as part of the cause of action arose in Calcutta, where the order of removal was served. The Court determined that the order became effective upon receipt by the appellant in Calcutta. It ruled the writ petition maintainable despite the appellant's superannuation, and the Government company was subject to writ jurisdiction. The judgment of the single Judge was set aside, and the case was remanded for disposal on merits, with no order for costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to entertain the writ petition.
2. Effectiveness of the order of removal.
3. Part of the cause of action arising in Calcutta.
4. Maintainability of the writ petition after the appellant's superannuation.
5. Applicability of writ jurisdiction against a Government company.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court:
The primary issue was whether the Calcutta High Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant argued that a part of the cause of action arose in Calcutta as the impugned order of removal was served on him at his residence in Calcutta. The Court held that in view of Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, a writ petition is maintainable if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the State of West Bengal. The Court concluded that the order of removal became effective when it was received by the appellant in Calcutta, thereby giving rise to a part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.

2. Effectiveness of the Order of Removal:
The Court examined when the order of removal became effective. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, which held that an order of dismissal becomes effective only when it is communicated to the concerned officer. The Court also distinguished between the communication of an order of suspension and an order of dismissal, noting that the latter requires actual knowledge by the officer. The Court concluded that the impugned order of removal became effective when it was received by the appellant in Calcutta.

3. Part of the Cause of Action Arising in Calcutta:
The Court discussed whether the receipt of the order of removal in Calcutta constituted a part of the cause of action. It was held that the service of the order of removal was the immediate occasion giving rise to a cause of action for the appellant to move against the same before a Court or Tribunal. The Court also noted that the incidents constituting the charges against the appellant, except one, had happened in Calcutta, thereby contributing to a part of the cause of action arising in Calcutta.

4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition After the Appellant's Superannuation:
The Corporation contended that the writ petition had become infructuous as the appellant had crossed the age of superannuation during the pendency of the appeal. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan, which suggested that the High Court should ordinarily quash the order of dismissal if found illegal but should not necessarily direct payment of full back wages. The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable for the purpose of quashing the order of removal, and the issue of back wages would depend on the facts of each case.

5. Applicability of Writ Jurisdiction Against a Government Company:
The Corporation argued that no writ lies against it as it is a Government company. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Som Prakash v. Union of India, which held that a Government company is an "authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution and is subject to the same constitutional limitations as the Government. The Court concluded that the Corporation, being a Government company under the control of the Government of India, is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 and is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

Conclusion:
The judgment of the learned single Judge was set aside, and the case was sent back to the appropriate Bench for disposal on merits. The appeal was allowed, but there was no order for costs.

---