Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 361 (JHR)

Navin Kumar Dwivedi v. Union Of India

2003-03-22

M.Y.EQBAL

body2003
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This writ application has been heard on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. 2. I have heard Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel has raised preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ petition. 3. It appears that the petitioner was in the service of the Central Industrial Security Force (in short CISF). While he was posted as a constable in CISF unit, Tripura, he was served with a charge sheet and in a departmental proceeding he was finally dismissed from service. Final order of dismissal was passed on 4.4.2000 by respondent No. 4, Group Commandant, CISF, Calcutta. The petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No. 3, Deputy Inspector General of CISF, Calcutta which was also dismissed. By that time the petitioner after dismissal from service, came back to his native place at Giridih in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner then filed revision before respondent No. 2, the Inspector General of CISF, Calcutta which too was dismissed. 4. Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the order passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority was communicated to the petitioner in the native place at Giridih, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ application. Learned counsel relied upon a decision in the case of Bri. Ashok Malhotra v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 595. 5. Admittedly the memo of charge was served upon the petitioner and departmental proceeding was initiated when the petitioner was posted at Tripura and final order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was also passed when the petitioner was posted at Tripura which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In my opinion also merely because the petitioner came back to his native place in the district of Giridih within the State of Jharkhand, this writ application cannot be entertained before this Court. The ratio relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Br. In my opinion also merely because the petitioner came back to his native place in the district of Giridih within the State of Jharkhand, this writ application cannot be entertained before this Court. The ratio relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Br. Ashok Malhotra (Supra) does not apply in the facts of the present case, rather, in similar facts of a case a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Krishna Prasad Singh v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 391, held that the Court where the petitioner subsequently resides, cannot have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ application. A Bench followed the observation made by the Supreme Court and observed as follows : The only factual aspects in support of the petitioners contention for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court are (i) the petitioners residence which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, (ii) service of revisional and appellate order within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. But on those facts this Court cannot entertain this 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 was served upon the petitioner also outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Incidentally it may be mentioned that the Honble 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. The said opinion of the Honble Supreme Court has been expressed very strongly in the three Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oil-and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711 . The said decision of the Supreme Court is binding on this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and this Court is also in respectful agreement with the same." 6. Having regard to the facts of the case and the law discussed hereinabove, this writ application is dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.