Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 245 (ALL)

CORPORAL G. S. TRIPATHI v. UNION OF INDIA

2001-03-16

SUDHIR NARAIN

body2001
SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE question is as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to quash the order passed by the commanding Officer, Air Force Station, Digaru district Kamarup (Assam) and the Air Force officer Commanding-in-Chief, Headquarters, Eastern Air Command I. A. F. . Shillong. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the petitioner was enrolled into Indian Air Force as Airman in the trade of Clerk Pay Accounts. Disciplinary proceedings were taken against him. The charge-sheet was submitted and he submitted the reply. The Commanding Officer. Air Force station. Digaru. district Kamarup (Assam) sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and dismissed him from service and reduced his rank. The petitioner presented petition under Section 161 (1) of the Air Force Act. 1950, to the Air Officer commanding in charge. Headquarters Eastern Air Command. A. I. F. Shillong. He dismissed the petition but remitted to two months rigorous Imprisonment vide order dated 14. 10. 2000. He has presented a petition dated 16th October. 2000, addressed to the Chief of Air Staff Air headquarter (VB ). New Delhi, respondent No. 2 which is still pending. The petitioner has in the writ petition, sought to quash the orders passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Assam and Meghalaya. The relief claimed in the writ petition is as follows : (i) Issue a writ of certiofari quashing the entire proceeding of District Court Martial Including the Court of Inquiry. Summary of Evidence, the convening order and the judgment dated 11 august, 2000, passed by the District Court Martial convicting the petitioner and terminating the service of the petitioner and reducing him to ranks and the order dated 14th October. 2000. passed by the respondent No. 3 upholding the conviction and remitting the sentence by two months. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to Air Force services as Corporal and pay the arrears of the back wages and to continue to pay the salary and other allowances month to month till he attains the age of su perannuation. (iii) Issue any writ, order or direction which this Honble Court deemed fit and proper. (iv) Issue any writ, order and direction. (v) To call for record. (vi) To award the cost. (iii) Issue any writ, order or direction which this Honble Court deemed fit and proper. (iv) Issue any writ, order and direction. (v) To call for record. (vi) To award the cost. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 21st december, 1998 at Air Force Station. Digaru, Assam. He was later on transferred to Civil Prison at Agra from Air Force Station Digaru and as he is confined in the prison at District Jail. Agra, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has not prayed for writ of habeas corpus. He has sought to quash the order passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner has been imprisoned on account of the orders passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The mere fact that a person has been transferred from one prison to another will not give jurisdiction to the High Court where a person has been lodged in a prison in that State. This matter was considered in Chhabinath Rai v. Union of India and others, 1997 (i) UPLBEC 236, and it was held that the mere fact that a person is confined in Civil Jail In uttar Pradesh in pursuance of an order passed by an officer under the provisions of Army Act which was not situate within the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court does not get jurisdiction to entertain writ petition to quash the order passed by the Army authorities outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. In Modan Gopal Rung la v. Secretary to the Government of orissa and others. AIR 1962 SC 1513 . where the application for grant of mining lease was rejected by the Orissa Government and review petition was also rejected by the Central government, it was held that Orissa High Court had no Jurisdiction to entertain the petition in view of the fact that Central Government was not located within the territories and jurisdiction of orissa High Court. It was observed : "it is well-settled by a series of decisions of this Court beginning with Venkata Raos case. 1953 scr 1144 : AIR 1953 SC 210 that there is two-fold limitation on the power of the High Court to grant a writ under Article 226. It was observed : "it is well-settled by a series of decisions of this Court beginning with Venkata Raos case. 1953 scr 1144 : AIR 1953 SC 210 that there is two-fold limitation on the power of the High Court to grant a writ under Article 226. These limitations are firstly that the power is to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction, that is to say, the writs issued by the High Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction, and secondly that the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be within those territories, which clearly implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories. " ( 5 ) IN Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711 . where the tenders were considered by the Company at New Delhi and rejected at New Delhi, it was held that the Calcutta High. Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against rejection of tenders merely because the tenderer-petitioner read advertisement at Calcutta and submitted offer from Calcutta and made representation from Calcutta. The Apex Court reiterated that there is two-fold principle of jurisdiction. Firstly, the authorities to whom writ is Issued must be within the Jurisdiction of High Court and secondly, part of cause of action arises within the Jurisdiction. ( 6 ) AS in the present case, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition is not maintainable in this Court. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Central administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules. 1987, which provides that if a person who is ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose Jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application. 1987, which provides that if a person who is ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose Jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application. This provision is applicable only in respect of application which is presented before the Central Administrative Tribunal but it has no application to a writ petition filed by a person under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226 confer jurisdiction on the High Courts to issue certain writs subject to the condition mentioned therein. It reads as under : (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including (writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.) (2) The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. ( 8 ) IN Oil and Natural Gas Commission case (supra), the Supreme Court deprecated the tendency to assume jurisdiction on the sole ground that the petitioner resides in or carries on business from a registered office in a place within the High Courts jurisdiction. ( 9 ) IN view of the above, there Is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. .