Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 632 (PAT)

Raj Kumar Prasad v. Union Of India

2000-04-25

R.M.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 9.3.1999, whereby the appeal as against the order denying disability pension has been rejected. 2. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of this writ petition as, according to him, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over the matter. 3. In short, the relevant facts are that vide order dated 8th December, 1997, contained in Annexure 2, the petitioner was discharged from Military service after declaring him "invalid out of service". The said order was passed by the authority at Jabalpur and communicated to the petitioner also at Jabalpur. Thereafter the petitioner started living at his village home within the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner had claimed for grant of disability pension, which was rejected, vide order dated 21st May, 1998, contained in Annexure 3, and communicated at his village home. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal which has been rejected vide impugned order and communicated at his village home within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus, contended that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition as against the impugned order. In support of this, he has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Brig. Ashok Malhotra V/s. Union of India, reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 595. 5. This Court is unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Brig. Ashok Malhotra (supra), the facts are completely distinguishable. The order was communicated to the appellant of the said case while he was in service at Danapur. As such, it was held that cause of action for the appellant to agitate his supersession arose at Danapur which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. 6. In the present case, in fact, the cause of action arose when the order, contained in Annexure 2, was communicated to the petitioner at Jabalpur, whereby he was discharged and the cause for discharge shown was "invalid out of service". However, with respect to the claim of the petitioner regarding disability pension, documents were forwarded to Allahabad for finalisation, which was rejected, vide order contained in Annexure 3. 7. However, with respect to the claim of the petitioner regarding disability pension, documents were forwarded to Allahabad for finalisation, which was rejected, vide order contained in Annexure 3. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the said order of rejection itself contemplated that the petitioner may prefer an appeal in duplicate and pursuant to it, the petitioner preferred appeal, which has been rejected and communicated to him at his home address by the impugned order. Thus, the cause of action of the petitioner arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 8. In this regard learned Additional Standing Counsel has referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna Prasad Singh V/s. Union of India, reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 391. in which similar question was involved. The only factual aspect invoking the jurisdiction of this Court in the said case were that the petitioners residence was within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and that service of revisional and appellate order was also within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Judge held that on those facts this Court cannot entertain the writ petition when the original order of dismissal which is the sole cause of action of the petitioner was passed outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and also served upon him outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The learned single Judge has also noticed that Hon ble Supreme Court has strongly deprecated the practice of some High Courts which have allowed the litigants to invoke its jurisdiction regardless of cause of action merely on the ground of residence of the petitioner. A reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission V/s. Utpal Kumar Basu and others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711 was also made in the said judgment. 9. In that view of the matter, I am unable to accept that as against the appeltate order, contained in Annexure 1, this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 10. As the cause of action, in fact, arose by the order, contained in Annexure 2, which was passed at Jabalpur and also communicated to the petitioner at Jabalpur, the writ petition is, thus, dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.