Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 14 (DEL)

I. D. PASWAN v. UOI

2006-01-02

MADAN B.LOKUR

body2006
MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28. 11. 2005. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, for the appellant and perused the records. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same, except where necessary. ( 3 ) IN the year 2000, the Bihar Re-organization Act was passed by which the state of Bihar was divided into two States namely, the State of Bihar and the state of Jharkhand. Obviously, in this situation, some officials from the State of Bihar were to be allocated to the State of Jharkhand and this was provided for in Sections 72,73 and 74 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. ( 4 ) THIS litigation pertains to allocation of the officials of the erstwhile State of Bihar. ( 5 ) IN our opinion, the appellants should either approach the Patna High court or Jharkhand High Court in this connection. ( 6 ) WE agree with Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the appellants, that this Court has jurisdiction in the matter because the impugned orders dated 24. 2. 2005 and 9. 3. 2005 were passed by the Central Government in delhi under Section 72 of the Bihar Re-organization Act and hence, at least, a part of the cause of action arises in Delhi. It has been held by the Supreme court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and another; (2004) 6 scc 254 that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the High Court of that State has jurisdiction in the matter. Hence, we are of the opinion that this High Court has jurisdiction in the matter because the impugned orders of Central Government were passed in delhi. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, having jurisdiction is one thing and whether to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution is another thing. Hence, we are of the opinion that this High Court has jurisdiction in the matter because the impugned orders of Central Government were passed in delhi. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, having jurisdiction is one thing and whether to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution is another thing. We may have jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution relating to some matter but since writ is a discretionary remedy, we may on the facts of a particular case decide not to exercise our discretion, invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens vide Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. (supra para 30 ). ( 8 ) IN the present case, the dispute really pertains to employees of the state of Jharkhand. In paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge, it has been mentioned:-"12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the High courts at Jharkhand as well as Bihar have been approached by employees and officials complaining of wrong cadre allocations; from time to time orders and judgments have been delivered by those High Courts. The petitioners belong to an identical or similar class of employees and they cannot approach this Court merely on the circumstance that the Central Government acted upon or did not act upon the recommendations of the committee or in accordance with the Act while accepting or rejecting the individual requests for cadre allocation in jharkhand. " ( 9 ) THUS, it appears that some other employees did approach the High Courts at Patna and Jharkhand in similar matters. It would, therefore, in our opinion, be appropriate if the appellants also approach the Patna High Court or jharkhand High Court in the matter as otherwise there may be conflicting decisions. Hence, while we hold that this Court has jurisdiction in the matter, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for exercise of our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and hence we give liberty to the appellants to withdraw this appeal and approach either the Patna High Court or the Jharkhand High Court as they choose. ( 10 ) THE appeal is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. ( 10 ) THE appeal is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge shall continue for another four weeks from today so as to enable the appellants to approach the Patna High Court or Jharkhand High Court as the case may be. .