Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2872 (RAJ)

Anand Bardwa v. Raj. Financial Corpn.

2005-11-07

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.- These three petitions are based on common facts and the question required to be decided is also similar, therefore, the same are heard and decided by a common order. For convenience the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3050/2005 are taken into consideration. 2. By this petition an appropriate writ, order or direction is sought by the petitioner to quash the order dated 28.03.2005 passed by the Executive Director, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"); the notice dated 25.04.2005 issued by the Manager (Branch), Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Kota and the order dated 06.05.2005 passed by the Manager, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Kota. .3. By order dated 28.03.2005 the respondent Corporation withdrew the directions issued by a letter dated 25.02.2005 pertaining to allotment of land acquired from RIICO by the Corporation. By notice dated 25.04.20 .the Manager of Kota Branch of the Corporation sought explanation from the petitioner as to why the allotment of land made in his favour by letter dated 11.03.2005 be not withdrawn/cancelled being not legal. By order dated 06.05.2005 the Manger of the Corporation cancelled the allotment of land made in favour of petitioner, situated at Indira Vihar, Kota. 4. While giving challenge to the orders mentioned above the petitioner has also given challenge to the order dated 08.04.2005 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation placing the petitioner under suspension by exercising powers conferred by Regulation No. 37(A)of the RFC (Staff) Regulations, 1948. By the same order during the period of suspension headquarter of the petitioner was fixed at Regional Office, Jodhpur, The petitioner has also given challenge to the memorandum dated 12.04.2005 issued by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as per the provisions of RFC (Staff) Regulations Act, 1958. 5. This Court by a order dated 23.05.2005 pleased to issue notice to show cause to the respondents as to why the writ petition by not admitted, in pursuant thereof a reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents and a rejoinder is submitted by the petitioner. A saur-rejoinder is also filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. A saur-rejoinder is also filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition at Jodhpur on the count that whatever cause of action said to be arisen for filling the present writ petition arose either at Kota or at Jaipur, therefore, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertaining to cause in question can be entertained by this Court before its Bench at Jaipur. .7. Learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation to substantiate the preliminary objection asserted that the President of India in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section(2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and after consultation with Governor of Rajasthan and Chief Justice of High Court of Rajasthan issued a presidential order establishing a permanent Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur w.e.f. 31.01.1977. It is further emphasised that under an order dated 212.1976 Honble Chief Justice of this Court while exercising powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 read with Sections 54 and 57 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 ordered that w.e.f. 31st day of January, 1977 all the cases arising in revenue Districts of Ajmer, Alwar, Bundi, Bharatpur, Jaipur, Jhalawar, Jhunjhunu, Kota, Sawaimadhopur, Sikar and Tonk shall be disposed of by the Bench of this Court at Jaipur. According to Counsel for the respondents in light of presidential order and the order dated 212.1976 the jurisdiction to adjudicate present writ petition vests with Jaipur Bench of this Court. Counsel for the respondents also substantiated the contention by placing reliance upon the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2001 (2) SCC 294 . In the aforesaid matter Honble Apex Court while considering the presidential order referred above and the order dated 212.1976 held as under:- ."The purpose of the Presidential order is to carve out and define territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat at Jodhpur and the permanent Bench seat at Jaipur. The cases are to be heard accordingly, unless the Chief Justice may exercise in his discretion the power vested in him by the proviso to Para 2 of the Presidential Order. The cases are to be heard accordingly, unless the Chief Justice may exercise in his discretion the power vested in him by the proviso to Para 2 of the Presidential Order. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution provide how territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised by any High Court. Although the said clauses do not deal with principal seat or permanent Bench of any High Court but in our opinion, there is no reason why the principle underlying thereunder cannot be applied to the functioning of the bifurcated territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat and permanent Bench seat of any High Court. In case of a dispute arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed and heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the same has to be found out by applying the test - from which district the case arises, that is, in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution." 8. Shri M.S. Singhvi, Counsel for the petitioner while contesting the preliminary objection raised by the Counsel for respondents urged that the petition can be maintained at Jodhpur as the Principal Seat of the Rajasthan High Court is at Jodhpur. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the Judgment given by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association (Supra), cannot be taken into consideration being per-incurium. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association (Supra), Honble Supreme Court was examining validity of the Judgment dated 09.03.1992 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Dangi vs. Union of India & Ors. 1992 (1) WLC [Raj.] 419. According to Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Virendra Dangi (Supra) the only question involved was with regard to maintainability of a writ petition at Jaipur and also the explanation given in the order dated 212.1976. No issue was involved in that case with regard to maintainability of a writ petition at the Principal Seat of the High Court irrespective of the place where the cause arisen. No issue was involved in that case with regard to maintainability of a writ petition at the Principal Seat of the High Court irrespective of the place where the cause arisen. According to Counsel for the petitioner Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association (Supra), dealt with an issue which was in fact not before it for adjudication and, therefore, the Judgment given is per-incurium. 9. I do not find any merit in the contention so raised by Counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled that the term " per-incurium" means that a decision given in ignorance of previous decision of the Court of co-ordinate or higher jurisdiction or by ignorance of a term of a statute or of rule having the force of statute. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association (Supra), consciously dealt with the issue as to whether permanent Bench at Jaipur shall have "exclusive jurisdiction" to hear the cases arising out of 11 specified districts in the order dated 212.1976. It is also pertinent to note that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Dangi (Supra), in specific terms dealt with the issue as to whether by presidential order while establishing a permanent Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of the High Court at Jodhpur was illegally curtailed by giving exclusive jurisdiction to hear the cases arising in 11 district falling within the jurisdiction of this Court at Jaipur as detailed in the order concerned. The Division Bench in the case above dealt with this issue in detail and held as under:- “We are of the opinion that there can be hardly any dispute that under the Presidential Order dated 012.1976, exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on the permanent Bench to hear cases arising within the eleven districts falling within its jurisdiction & to that extent there is a curtailment of the territorial jurisdiction of the principal seat of the High Court at Jodhpur. Cases have come to our notice that on the ground that the view taken in the case of Ram Rakh Vyas (Supra), is under challenge before the Apex Court, the cases are being entertained by the principal seat of this Court, though arising within the revenue districts falling within the jurisdiction of the permanent Bench of this Court at Jaipur, they are being entertained at Jodhpur. In the case of Ram Rakh Vyas (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court has taken a clear view that the aforesaid Presidential Order confers exclusive jurisdiction on the permanent Bench of this Court at Jaipur so far as cases arising in 11 districts mentioned therein are concerned and therefore, unless that view is set aside by the Apex Court the principal seat of this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain cases arising within 11 districts covered by the Presidential Order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that so far as 11 districts are concerned, exclusive jurisdiction in respect of cases arising in those 11 districts is conferred on the permanent Bench of this Court at Jaipur." 10. In view of it, it is wrong to say that Honble Supreme Court adjudicated a question in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association (Supra), which was not before it. 11. It is also contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association (Supra), is per-incurium as the Court has not taken into consideration the effect of provision of Articles 214 and 231 of the Constitution of India. According to Counsel for the petitioner Article 214 of the Constitution provides for a High Court for each State. In event the Jaipur Bench be given exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the cases arising within its jurisdiction then it shall amount to creation of two High Courts in State of Rajasthan, the same shall be nothing but a contravention to Article 214 of the Constitution. Counsel for the petitioner to crystallise his contention has placed reliance to the provisions of Article 231 of the Constitution of India also which prescribed establishment of a common High Court for two or more States. It is empathetically contended that a common High Court for two or more States exists but there cannot be two High Courts in a State. It is empathetically contended that a common High Court for two or more States exists but there cannot be two High Courts in a State. In event the Principal Seat of the High Court is restrained from exercising its jurisdiction for the case arising in any part of the State then the same shall be illegal as the Bench to which the jurisdiction to adjudicate such cause is given shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate those matters and that shall amount to have a separate High Court in a State, which is not permissible. 12. In my considered opinion the argument above raised by Counsel for the petitioner is also not having any force. The jurisdiction to deal with the issues arising in various territories in the State is administrative and it is for smooth and uniform functioning of the Benches of this Court. It is pertinent to note that the presidential order as well as the order dated 212.1976 gives a broad discretion to Honble Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to hear a case or class of cases to the Court either at Jodhpur or at Jaipur. This position makes it quite clear that by giving exclusive jurisdiciton to the Benches of this Court to hear the cases on basis of the place of arising of cause of action does not amount to creation of a separate High Court. 13. Counsel for the petitioner in alternative also urged that in the present case the part cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur as all the orders impugned were served upon the petitioner at Jodhpur and if cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified areas of Jodhpur then this Court at Jodhpur is having jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition. 14. The petitioner to substantiate the contention that part cause of action arose at Jodhpur, placed reliance upon Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of J.K. Industries. Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in 2005 (5) RDD 1066. Essentially the issue with regard to arising of cause of action is required to be decided and determined on basis of the facts pleaded. Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in 2005 (5) RDD 1066. Essentially the issue with regard to arising of cause of action is required to be decided and determined on basis of the facts pleaded. In order to confer jurisdiction to entertin writ petition by High Court the integral facts are required to be pleaded in support of cause of action giving a cause so as to empower the Court to decide the lis between the parties. The facts of the case of J.K. Industries Ltd. (Supra), are quite different, therefore, the decision of that case is having no application in present set of facts. 15. In the present case the land, allotment of which is sought to be cancelled, is situated at Kota, the orders cancelling the allotment is passed at Kota, the petitioner was placed under suspension at Kota and the memorandum initiating disciplinary proceedings was passed at Jaipur. The only fact which taken place at Jodhpur is that the petitioners headquarter during the period of suspension is fixed at Jodhpur, the notice to cancel allotment of land, orders cancelling allotment of land and initiating disciplinary proceedings are addressed to the petitioner at Jodhpur. Mere service of those orders does not give rise to a cause of action to the petitioner to file writ petition here at Jodhpur as the entire cause culminating in cancelling of allotment of land and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench of this Court. In fact whatever cause arisen to file the present writ petition arose either at Jaipur or at Kota. 16. In view of it I am of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction to entertain present writ petition lies with Jaipur Bench of this Court. 17. Accordingly, all these petitions are dismissed. The Registry of this Court is directed to return record of the cases to the petitioner/Counsel for the petitioner for its proper presentation before the Bench of this Court at Jaipur. However, as an interim order is already operating in favour of the petitioners, the same shall remain in currency upto 111.2005.