Territorial jurisdiction and Article 12 control: knowledge of removal order and Union-controlled government company amenability to writs.
In a dismissal or removal matter, territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) can arise where the employee first acquires knowledge of the operative removal order; actual receipt or service is distinct from mere despatch, and the relevant facts here arose in Calcutta, so the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction. A Government company controlled by the Union falls within "other authorities" under Article 12 and is amenable to writ jurisdiction as State, although its employee is not entitled to Article 311 protection. The jurisdictional and maintainability objections therefore failed, and the matter was remitted for decision on merits.
Issues: (i) whether a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court so as to sustain the writ petition under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether a Government company under the control of the Union is amenable to writ jurisdiction as "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Issue (i): whether a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court so as to sustain the writ petition under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The order of removal in a dismissal or removal case becomes effective only when the employee acquires knowledge of it, and in the absence of prior knowledge that occurs on actual receipt or service of the order. Communication in that sense is distinct from the mere despatch of the order. Since the appellant received the removal order at his Calcutta residence and the charges were also substantially founded on events that had occurred in Calcutta, facts material to the enforceable claim arose there. Those facts were not merely incidental; they were part of the bundle of facts giving rise to the right to challenge the removal.
Conclusion: A part of the cause of action arose in Calcutta, and the Calcutta High Court had territorial jurisdiction.
Issue (ii): whether a Government company under the control of the Union is amenable to writ jurisdiction as "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: A Government company controlled by the Union falls within the expression "other authorities" under Article 12 and is therefore subject to constitutional limitations applicable to State action. Consequently, such an entity can be proceeded against in writ jurisdiction, though the employee of such a company is not entitled to the protection of Article 311.
Conclusion: The Corporation was amenable to writ jurisdiction as State under Article 12.
Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection failed, the maintainability objections were rejected, and the matter was sent back for decision on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: In a dismissal or removal case, the cause of action for territorial jurisdiction arises where the employee first acquires knowledge of the operative order, and a Government company controlled by the Union is amenable to writ jurisdiction as State under Article 12.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
