TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the appellate and the revisional authority under the provisions of 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, a preliminary objection was raised with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It was argued that no cause of action or part of cause of action has accrued to the petitioners within the State of U.P. and merely because the appellate and the revisional order had been communicated to them at their respective home districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, same would not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the writ petitions. 3. The submission was that since the dismissal order has been passed by the Commandant, 129th Battalion, CRPF at Bhotgaon, Kokarajhar, Assam and was communicated to the petitioners there itself and further that the departmental appeal and revision have been rejected by the competent authorities at Bhopal, the remedy before the petitioners is to either approach the Gauhati High Court or Jabalpur High Court, whichever they choose. The writ petitions challenging the dismissal, appellate and revisional orders cannot be maintained in this Court. 4. The learned Single Judge in the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... letters and representations were entertained by the respondents and replied and a decision on those representations were communicated to him on his home address in Bihar. Admittedly, appellant was suffering from serious heart muscles disease (Dilated Cardiomyopathy) and breathing problem which forced him to stay in native place, wherefrom he had been making all correspondence with regard to his disability compensation. Prima facie, therefore, considering all the facts together, a part or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court where he received a letter of refusal disentitling him from disability compensation." Shri Vijay Gautam has further placed reliance upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 785 of 2014 Bibhuti Narain Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India and others and Special Appeal No. 158 of 2016 Har Govind Singh Vs. Union of India and others. In both the judgments, the two Division Benches have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra). In the case of Bibhuti Narain Singh (supra) the Court has held that in view of the judgment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch is in the following words:- "Having considered the judgments and orders referred to above, I am of the view that there is a conflict of opinion between the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra (supra) and Constable Lalji Pandey (supra) on one hand and the orders passed by the two Division Benches of this Court in the case of Bibhuti Narain Singh (supra) and Har Govind Singh (supra) in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) and this dispute, therefore, needs to be resolved by a larger Bench on the question with regard as to whether the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) in paragraph 17 can be said to be a binding precedent on this Court to entertain the above writ petitions or whether the observations of paragraph 17 were in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) in view of paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said judgment. OR In the alternative whether the judgment of the Full Bench in Rajendra Kumar Mishra (supra) and Constable Lalji Pandey (supra) can be said to still lay down the correct l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n view of the decision of the Apex Court in Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1275, a writ petition challenging the impugned sentence can be filed in any High Court in India as the Chief of Army Staff has been made respondent in that case. It was further urged that since the petitioner (therein) was resident of District Ballia within the State of Uttar Pradesh, the writ petition can be filed in the High Court at Allahabad. Considering the law propounded by the Apex Court, referring to the various decisions, it was held by the Full Bench in paragraphs '39', '40' '41' and '42' as under:- "39. Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it is a statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law. 40. For the reasons given above we are of the opinion that the Chief of Army Staff can only be sued either at Delhi where he is located or at a plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion has arisen within the territory of the particular Court will have to be determined in each case on its own facts in the context of the subject matter of the litigation, and relief claimed. The Full Bench in Rajendra Kumar Mishra 2005 (1) UPLBEC 108, in principle has approved the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Saroj Mahanta (Mrs.), LT. Colonel 2003 (3) ESC 1419, wherein it was stated that in order to determine as to whether the Court has a jurisdiction to entertain a petition, the pleadings in the petition have to be examined to form an opinion as to whether a cause of action partly or fully has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The Division Benches in Saroj Mahanta (Mrs.), LT. Colonel 2003 (3) ESC 1419, in the facts situation of that cases had concluded that this Court did not have territorial jurisdiction. (b) In Constable Lalji Pandey1, the challenge before the Division Bench was to the punishment order dated 17.3.1994 of dismissal from service on the charge of unauthorized absence from duty. The writ petition was filed by the delinquent after exhausting departmental remedy of appeal as well as revision before the com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect to their lordships, in the order dated 26.11.2019 of the Division Bench, we do not find any reasoning given by it to reach at the conclusion as to how the order of learned Single Judge was wrong and why in their opinion, the issue required reconsideration by the Single Bench. We, however, may note that the same issue in Har Govind Singh3 had been remitted twice. In an earlier decision dated 27.4.2016, it was observed by the earlier Division Bench that the writ petition filed in the year 2004 had wrongly been dismissed after 12 years of its institution on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. Be that as it may, in our considered opinion, the conclusion drawn by the Division Bench in Har Govind Singh3 is not the law laid down as a binding precedent which merited this reference. The reference to the decision of the Division Bench in Har Govind Singh3 in the referral order is, thus, wholly irrelevant. (d) In Bibhuti Narain Singh2, the Division Bench of this Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma (2014) 9 SCC 329 has held that the part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt in State of Rajasthan and Others vs. M/s. Swaika Properties and Another (1985) 3 SCC 217, was noted, wherein the expression "cause of action" was considered to hold as under:- "8. The expression "cause of action" is tersely defined in Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure: "The 'cause of action' means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court." In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. The mere service of notice under Section 52(2) of the Act on the respondents at their registered office at 18-B, Brabourne Road, Calcutta i.e. within the territorial limits of the State of West Bengal, could not give rise to a cause of action within that territory unless the service of such notice was an integral part of the cause of action. The entire cause of action culminating in the acquisition of the land under Section 52(1) of the Act arose within the State of Rajasthan i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at the Jaipur Bench. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis i.e. the dispute involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. In Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India and another (2006) 6 SCC 207, it was observed that writ petitioners have to establish that a legal right claimed by them has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof. In Rajendran Chingaravelu vs. R.K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Others (2010) 1 SCC 457, the Apex Court while considering the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly the cause of action in maintaining a writ petition, held that clause (2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High Court exercising....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejecting his claim for disability compensation. 9. Noticing the above facts, it was observed therein that admittedly, the appellant was suffering from serious heart muscles disease (Dilated Cardiomyopathy) and breathing problem which forced him to stay in his native place, wherefrom he had been making all correspondence with regard to his disability compensation. It was considered that all claims and representations filed by the appellant (therein) were entertained by the respondent and replied and decision on those representations were communicated to him at his home address in Bihar. Considering these facts together, it was held in Nawal Kishore Sharma (2014) 9 SCC 329 that prima facie a part or a fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court where he received the letter of refusal disentitling him from disability compensation. It was clearly observed by the Apex Court that the order of dismissal of writ petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction cannot be sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 10. From an exhaustive reading of the decision in Nawal Kishore Sharma (2014) 9 SCC 329, it is evident that the quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue respect, totally misdirected himself in not considering the ratio of the decisions placed before him and referring the matter to the Larger Bench when no conflicting view on the matter was facing him. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge ought to have applied the law laid down by the Apex Court and the Larger Bench to appreciate the facts of the case to form its opinion as to whether the instant writ petitions were maintainable before this Court i.e. to decide whether the facts pleaded in the writ petitions constitute cause of action, wholly or in part to confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court. 15. We may note that reference to a Larger Bench under Chapter V Rule 6 of the Allahabad High Court Rules' 1952 can only be made when there are conflicting views of the Coordinate Bench or the Larger Bench facing his Lordship on a subject/controversy before him making it difficult for him to take one or other view. Reference cannot be made merely to create a precedent or to get an authoritative pronouncement by the Larger Bench on any assumed conflict. Whenever a matter is placed before the Court (whether single or division bench) for adjudication, if a questi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench, with due regards to the learned Judges referring the matter, on hypothetical conflict, would not be a proper judicial exercise. 60. In our considered view, an issue being of importance by itself, cannot be a ground for referring the matter to the Larger Bench." 17. Having said that, to restate the law, we may revisit the issue to clarify the legal position as we deem it apposite to express our view in order to lend a quietus to the doubts which appear to exist. 18. As noted above in detail, it is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma (2014) 9 SCC 329 having traced the legal position pre and post insertion of clause (2) in Article 226 of the Constitution had come to the conclusion that the question of jurisdiction (territorial) must be decided in the facts of the case having due regard to the pleading in the writ petition. Appreciating a long line of decisions ranging from the year 1985 till the year 2000 and the scope of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, particularly the cause of action in maintaining a writ petition, it has been concluded in paragraph '16' of the report that to establish that the cause o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hin the meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution must depend upon the nature of the impugned order giving rise to the cause of action. In order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition, it must be disclosed that the integral fact pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause so as to empower the Court to decide the matter and the entire or a part of it arose within its jurisdiction. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have the nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the Court. 23. In Ex. No. 1387-5234-M Sepoy/D.B./M.T., Chabi Nath Rai vs. Union of India & others 1997 (1) UPLBEC 236, a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the question whether the cause of action had arisen at Allahabad on communication of the decision on the representation of the appellant therein, had observed that the 'right to action' and 'cause of action' are two different things. This distinction was earlier considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Daya Shank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e at Jammu by the confirming authority, the mere fact that the appellant sent representation from Allahabad and the decision on his representation was communicated at Allahabad did not give rise to any cause of action at Allahabad. On the plea that the doctrine of merger is applicable in the case when an order is passed in appeal and the place where appellate order is communicated should be treated as a place where cause of action arises, it was held in Chabi Nath Rai 1997 (1) UPLBEC 236 that even if the doctrine of merger is applied in relation to the statutory appeal, it is only the place where the appeal is decided, the Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the appellant. The decision of the Apex Court in Collector of Customs, Calcutta vs. East India Commercial Company Calcutta and others AIR 1963 SC 1124, was considered, wherein it was held that once an order of original authority is taken in appeal to the appellate authority, it is the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate order has been passed, will only have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. The view taken by the Division Ben....