Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1509 (DEL)

R. S. DHULL v. STATE OF HARYANA

2007-07-27

HIMA KOHLI

body2007
HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying inter alia for directions to be issued to respondent no. 1. e. State of Haryana, for fixing proper pension of the petitioner with increment and seniority. ( 2 ) IT is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had initially, in the year 2005, filed a writ petition for the same relief before the High court of Punjab and Haryana. On 31. 1. 2007, the petitioner withdrew the aforesaid petition by filing an application on the ground that a similar matter filed by the petitioner was pending before the Supreme Court and that the petitioner did not want to pursue the aforesaid writ petition. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the writ petition was dismissed. However, records reflect that the petitioner had withdrawn the SLP filed in the Supreme Court much earlier. Vide order dated 23. 8. 2004, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP without going into the merits and without prejudice to the petitioner's remedy to approach the appropriate Court or Tribunal. ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, instead of going back to the Punjab and Haryana High court within whose jurisdiction the petitioner was employed and had rendered services and despite the fact that it is the State of Haryana against whom the petitioner is seeking relief, the petitioner chose to approach this Court and filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 2529/2007, seeking the same relief as sought in the present writ petition. However, at the stage of admission, the petitioner sought the liberty to withdraw the said writ petition. Vide oder dated 3. 4. 2007, as prayed for by the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and liberty was granted to the petitioner to file the same before the appropriate forum. Now, within one month thereof, the petitioner has preferred the present petition again seeking same relief as sought in the earlier writ petition. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 14. 2. 2005, passed in WP (C) No. 95/2004, entitled " R. S. Dhull Vs. Now, within one month thereof, the petitioner has preferred the present petition again seeking same relief as sought in the earlier writ petition. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 14. 2. 2005, passed in WP (C) No. 95/2004, entitled " R. S. Dhull Vs. State of Haryana" to claim that the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner cannot be ousted on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, inasmuch as an earlier petition filed by the petitioner in this Court against the State of Haryana was entertained and relief was also granted to him and the preliminary objection raised by the respondent therein concerning the territorial jurisdiction, was rejected. ( 5 ) ON perusing the aforesaid order, it appears that the petitioner had filed the aforesaid petition against the State of Haryana, claiming therein medical reimbursement on the ground that the petitioner was a resident of Delhi and had availed medical facilities from a hospital based in Delh. Keeping in view the aforesaid considerations, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that there is no absolute bar to exercising the extraordinary powers conferred on the High Courts in India by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution and what must be avoided is forum shopping. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the present case is a case of forum shopping. The petitioner first chose to file the writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and withdrew the same while claiming that an SLP was pending before the Supreme court. Records reflect that the SLP had in fact been withdrawn by him in the year 2004 itself while seeking liberty to approach an appropriate forum. He then filed a writ petition before this Court and withdrew the same while seeking liberty to approach the appropriate forum and thereafter he has filed the present writ petition again claiming the same relief. ( 7 ) THE plea of counsel for the petitioner as regards this Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition on account of the fact that the petitioner is in bad health, unable to travel to Haryana for seeking his remedies, a mini Secretariat of the respondent no. 1 is situated at delhi and he is only seeking implementation of a circular issued by respondent no. 1 is situated at delhi and he is only seeking implementation of a circular issued by respondent no. 2 for fixation of proper pension, does not have any force. None of the aforesaid grounds is sufficient to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this court, more so when the relief sought by the petitioner has been claimed not against respondent No. 2, but against respondent no. 1, whose principal seat is at chandigarh. ( 8 ) IT is settled law that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. , reported as AIR 2004 sc 2321 , wherein it has been held as under: "30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, AIR 1941 Cal 670 , madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal, (1995) 49 CWN 359, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. M/s jharia Talkies and Cold Storage (P) Ltd. , (1997) CHN 122, S. S. Jain and Co. v. Union of India and Ors, (1994) CWN 445 and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, air 1994 Del 126 . " ( 9 ) IN another case entitled National Textiles Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Haribox Swalram and Ors. , reported as AIR 2004 SC 1998 , while interpreting article 226 (2) in relation to cause of action and territorial jurisdiction and while relying on its earlier judgment in the case of Union of India v. Adani exports Ltd. reported as AIR 2002 SC 126 , the Court held as under: "10. . . . , reported as AIR 2004 SC 1998 , while interpreting article 226 (2) in relation to cause of action and territorial jurisdiction and while relying on its earlier judgment in the case of Union of India v. Adani exports Ltd. reported as AIR 2002 SC 126 , the Court held as under: "10. . . . "cause of action as understood in civil proceedings means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. It is the bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. Each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. " ( 10 ) THE aforesaid position of law has been followed and reiterated by this high Court in various cases, including the following: 1. West Coast Ingots (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2007 (209) ELT 343 2. Ex. Rect. /gd Vinod Kumar v. Union of India and Ors, 2007 (I) AD (Delhi) 284 ( 11 ) THE law as laid down in the above mentioned judgments is clear on the issue that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territory of a High Court, that does not mean that the said High Court is compelled to exercise jurisdiction in that respect. However, in the present case, the mere fact that a mini Secretariat of the respondent no. 1 is situated at Delhi, or that the petitioner is in bad health and it is difficult for him to travel to Haryana, or the fact that that the petitioner is seeking implementation of a circular regarding fixation of pension issued by the respondent no. 2, which is situated in Delhi, is not sufficient for this Court to entertain the present writ petition. 2, which is situated in Delhi, is not sufficient for this Court to entertain the present writ petition. ( 12 ) IT is also pertinent to note that while the petitioner has annexed the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court dated 23. 8. 2004 and that of the Punjab and haryana High Court dated 31. 1. 2007 along with the writ petition, only a passing reference has been made to the order dated 3. 4. 2007 passed by this court by which the writ petition being WP (C) No. 2529/2007 was dismissed as withdrawn and liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. The conduct of the petitioner in not having annexed the said order of this court with the writ petition, gives an impression that the petitioner has deliberately kept the petition vague in this respect. ( 13 ) IN the present case, the petitioner has primarily sought relief against respondent no. 1, who is not based in Delh. However, the petitioner has approached this Court and has filed the present writ petition again, despite the fact that liberty was given to him to approach "an appropriate forum", thus implying therein that this court was not the appropriate forum. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, with costs of Rs. 5,000/-, to be paid to the delhi Legal Services Authority within four weeks.