Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 753 (GUJ)

Nathabhai Bhaijibhai v. Union of India

2011-11-16

V.M.SAHAI

body2011
Judgment V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Hina Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. The short question that has arisen for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether if part of cause of action arises in the State of Gujarat, whether the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad will have jurisdiction or the Divisional office at Ajmer, Rajasthan would have jurisdiction in the matter where the impugned order has been passed. 2. The short facts are that the petitioner was working as ‘Gangmate’ and was posted at Adesar in Palanpur which is in the State of Gujarat. His pay was reduced by the impugned order dated 01.12.2001 which was passed by the Divisional Office, Ajmer [Rajasthan]. The impugned order was served on the petitioner at Adesar [Gujarat] and the order has taken effect at Gujarat and the pay-scale of the petitioner has been reduced. The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 01.12.2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench by filing O.A. No. 644/2002 dated 06.08.2004. The Tribunal has rejected the OA as not maintainable on the ground that it does not have any territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter as the petitioner was an employee of the Ajmer Division. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedural) Rules, 1987, which is extracted below :— “[Rule-6 : Place of filing applications— (1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction (i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or (ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen; Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under Section 25, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (1) persons who have ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application.]” 3. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (1) persons who have ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application.]” 3. From perusal of Rule 6(1) (i) (ii), it is clear that it is open to an employee to file application before the Central Administrative Tribunal at the place where he was posted time being or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was posted at Adesar, which is in Palanpur [Gujarat]. The impugned order has been passed at the Divisional Office, Ajmer [Rajasthan], but it has been served and taken effect at Adesar at Palanpur. Therefore, part of the cause of action has arisen at Palanpur, [Gujarat] and the other part of the cause of action has arisen at Ajmer [Rajasthan]. The law is well settled that if the part of cause of action has arisen in a particular state then it is open to the petitioner to challenge the order before the appropriate authority in that part of the particular State. By 15th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963, Clause (1-A) was added to Article 226(1) which was re-numbered as Clause (2) by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976. The effect of the amendment was that writ jurisdiction of the High Court was extended to those cases also where only a part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court. It is necessary to extract Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution which reads as below:— “226(2) Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.—The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.” Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 226(2) being par I materia, it is necessary to extract Section 20(c) which reads as under:— “20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.—Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction— xx xx xx xx (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” The expression “cause of action” has not been defined in any Statute. Cause of action means that the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue must be within the territorial limits of the High Court and even a small fraction of right to sue accrued within the jurisdiction of the High Court. In other words, the cause of action wholly or in part must had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. “Cause of action” is the bundle of facts which taken with applicable to them, gives the petitioner a right to relief against the respondent. 4. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal position, we are of the considered opinion that Rule 6(1) (i) (ii) both will apply to the case of the petitioner and the petitioner had every right to challenge the impugned order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. The Tribunal had therefore, committed error in rejecting the OA filed by the petitioner on the ground of territorial jurisdiction holding OA to be not maintainable. We, therefore, hold that the part of action has arisen at Adesar, Palanpur [Gujarat] and the petitioner’s OA is maintainable before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. 5. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 06.08.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 644/2002 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the OA afresh in accordance with law on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from today. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.