Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 357 (JK)

Sarfaraz College of Education v. Union Of India

2014-08-26

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2014
1. The short and simple controversy involved in the instant petition is, as to whether this Court can look into the legality of an action that has taken place and attributed to the State of Bihar? BRIEF FACTS 2. Petitioner, a recognized education institution, is imparting education to the students of different states of the Country and at a successful completion of a course the students are awarded degree certificates. 3. That a Memorandum no. 11/v-1-15/2012 362 dated 1st March, 2013, has been issued by respondent no. 2, by virtue of which all District Education Officers of the State have been impressed upon not to honour the B.Ed. degrees obtained from and pertaining to Tribuhuwan University and the institutions located within the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 4. That the impugned order is detrimental to the interests of petitioner-institution, as it will not be getting students from Bihar to pursue B.Ed. courses. Hence the writ petition. 5. Respondents upon notice have appeared but did not file any reply. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions. 7. Respondents have raised a preliminary objection as regards the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain, adjudicate upon and decide the matter questioning the action of a State other than the one where this Court is situated. This is how the writ petition has been heard and is taken up for final disposal, with the consensus of learned counsel for parties, at the admission stage itself. 8. Admit. 9. In order to determine, as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the petition in hand, it has to be seen whether any cause of action has accrued to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The cause of action, has been elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited v. Union of India, reported as (2004) 6 SCC 254 . The observations so made on the term are reproduced hereinbelow, thus: "The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily. The entire bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved, before the petitioner can obtain a decree, is the material facts. The expression material facts is also known as integral facts. All necessary facts must form an integral part of the cause of action." 10. The plain reading of the observations makes it abundantly clear as to how the cause of action would arise at a particular place. Mere fact that the petitioner college has been affected by the issuance of the impugned order does not give this Court the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter, as the order under challenge has been issued and made effective at Bihar only, therefore, the issuance of the impugned order, does not, in my view, constitute even a fraction of cause of action so as to persuade this Court to accept its plea. 11. The impugned memorandum appears to have been issued as per the policy of the concerned State Government and such an action can only be challenged in the concerned State. 12. Having regard to what has been stated hereinbefore, the preliminary objection, in respect of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, prevails, rendering the writ petition as not maintainable. 13. The writ petition, along with all CMPs, as such, is dismissed as not maintainable. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.