Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 290 (HP)

KULDEEP CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA

2004-10-25

A.K.GOEL

body2004
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral): - Petitioner has filed this writ petition for grant of following reliefs: "(i) Dispense with the requirement of advance notices to the respondents; and (ii) exempt the petitioner from filing the certified copies of Annexures P/1 to P/14; and (iii) order the release of subsistence allowance with effect from November, 1996 onwards as interim relief, during the pendency of the present petition by treating the petitioner under deemed suspended in terms of the provisions of Rule 40A of the B.S.F. Rules; and (iv) declare the entire proceedings conducted by the respondents and culminating in impugned order as vitiated from the very inception, being ultra vires of the mandatory provisions of the BSF Act and Rules made there under and as such nullity from very inception; and (v) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice and nonest in the eyes of laws; and (vi) issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits, including arrears of pay plus interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of realization; and (vii) allow the writ petition with costs; and/or pass such other order, writ or direction, which your Lordship may deem it fit and proper, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice." 2. When this case was taken up today for consideration, Shri Baldev Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this writ petition even if it be assumed for the sake of argument without conceding, that the petitioner is entitled to some relief. AS according to him, the cause of action if any, arose to the petitioner at Jalpaiguri in the State of West Bengal for the acts of misconduct having been allegedly committed there. He was charge sheeted for his such misconduct at Jalpaiguri, and then was dismissed after having been found guilty of the charge for which he was tried. 3. He preferred an appeal against his such dismissal before the Deputy Inspector General, B.S.F., Karamtala, District Darjeeling, West Bengali vide Annexure P-11, which was also dismissed as per stand of the as reflected in paragraph 28 of their reply. 4. 3. He preferred an appeal against his such dismissal before the Deputy Inspector General, B.S.F., Karamtala, District Darjeeling, West Bengali vide Annexure P-11, which was also dismissed as per stand of the as reflected in paragraph 28 of their reply. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no part of cause of action accrued to the petitioner within the State of Himachal Pradesh so as to avail the remedy of this writ petition in this Court. 5. Faced with this situation, Shri Gill on behalf of the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner resides within the jurisdiction of this Court, as such he is entitled to maintain the same. This plea has been raised simply to be rejected in view of the decision of this court in CWP No. 348 of 2000, titled Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India and others, decided on 21.10.2004. In this case on almost identical fact situation, it was held that this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain and try the writ petition. 6. Besides this decision, this question has been set at rest by the earliest decisions of this Court to which reference is being made herein below. 7. In S.S. Mittal v. Bar Council of India and others, 1972 I.L.R. (HP Series) 38, it was held as under :- "8. In the present case, the order was made by the Bar Council of India in the presence of the petitioner at Delhi. It was, therefore, communicated to him at Delhi. It took effect at Delhi, and its taking effect was not postponed to the moment when a copy of the order was served on the petitioner at; Shimla." 8. To the similar effect are the decisions of this Court in Tibetan Administrations Welfare Society v. Union of India and others, Latest HU 2001 (HP) 104 (D.B.) : 2000(1) Cur. L.J. (H.P.) (D.B.) 351 and in Subhash Chander v. Union of India and others, 2001(2) Shim. L.C. 259. 9. In my considered view these aforesaid decisions on the question of jurisdiction squarely cover the present case. 10. In view of the aforesaid position of law it is clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition, as such it merits dismissal on this ground alone. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into merits of the pleas urged by the parties in their respective pleadings. 10. In view of the aforesaid position of law it is clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition, as such it merits dismissal on this ground alone. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into merits of the pleas urged by the parties in their respective pleadings. As such, in case petitioner approaches the Court having jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition, this decision will not be a bar for him to seek suitable relief available to him under law. 11. Dismissed as aforesaid. No order as to costs. 12. Interim order dated 15.5.2000, shall stand vacated forthwith.