In this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of order dated 09.02.2004 passed by General Security Force Court by which the petitioner was sentenced to severe punishment, namely, reduction of seniority of the petitioner in the rank of Sub Inspector, forfeiture of three years past service for the purpose of pension and severe reprimand. The petitioner also seeks quashment of order dated 08.05.2004 which was confirmed by Inspector General, Border Security Force, Tripura confirming the sentence. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the petitioner to its original position with all consequential benefits. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector in Border Security Force vide order dated 02.11.1998 and at the time of filing writ petition, the petitioner was posted in Jammu as Inspector. The petitioner after completion of his training was posted on the post of Sub Inspector, BSF with 64 Bn of BSF which was stationed at Lamzang Churachand pur District Manipur. The petitioner on 15.02.2000 was deployed as part of patrol party in counter-insurgency operation. On 15.02.2000, two rounds of bullets accidentally went out from the 9 MM Carbine sub-automatic weapon carried by the petitioner. One of the stray bullets hit on the ground whereas other bullet hit Constable Girish Chand on his right hip, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Accordingly, the Police Station Manipur received the FIR on 15.02.2000, however the same was not registered. 3. Court of Enquiry was held during the month of Feb., 2000 against the petitioner which was presided over by Deputy Commandant of the Border Security Force. In the Court of Enquiry during investigation, the statements of as many as seven witnesses were recorded. The Court of Inquiry vide order dated 22.02.2000 after examining entire evidence and the material on record came to the finding that the firing of gun shots from the weapon carried by the petitioner was not intentional but the same was fired inadvertently from his carbine machine. 4. The Court of Inquiry vide order dated 22.02.2000 after examining entire evidence and the material on record came to the finding that the firing of gun shots from the weapon carried by the petitioner was not intentional but the same was fired inadvertently from his carbine machine. 4. After lapse of more than three years, charge-sheet dated 23.12.2003 was submitted against the petitioner in which inter alia it was alleged that while on duty on 15.02.2000, the petitioner voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Constable Girish Chand by firing two shots from his gun carbine machine. For the alleged offence, the petitioner is to be tried by General Security Force Court. The petitioner was served charge-sheet dated 23.12.2003. The General Security Force Court was held in which Constable Girish Chand retracted from his earlier statement which was made before the Court of Enquiry and stated that he had strained relations with the petitioner and petitioner with a view to take revenge fired on him. The General Security Force Court by order dated 09.02.2004 held that charges against the petitioner are duly established and sentenced the petitioner. The aforesaid order was affirmed in appeal before the Inspector General of Border Security Force vide order dated 09.02.2004. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation on 10.05.2004 before the Grievance Redressal Cell of the Border Security Force, however, the representation was returned to the petitioner vide communication dated 23.06.2004. Thereafter the petitioner submitted representation to the Director General of Border Security Force on 28.07.2004. The petitioner vide communication dated 16.12.2004 was informed that the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on 16.12.2004. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Director General, Border Security Force on 10.02.2005 as well as mercy petition dated 17.07.2008 for review of GSFC sentence which is addressed to Director General, Border Security Force. However the representation as well as mercy petition failed to evoke any response. In the circumstance aforesaid, petitioner has approached this court seeking the reliefs as stated supra. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to the statements recorded during the Court of Enquiry has submitted that the victim namely Girish Chand himself stated on oath that he had cordial relations with the petitioner and the gun shots were fired accidently and not deliberately. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to the statements recorded during the Court of Enquiry has submitted that the victim namely Girish Chand himself stated on oath that he had cordial relations with the petitioner and the gun shots were fired accidently and not deliberately. It is also argued that statements to similar effect have been made by other witnesses as well. It is also submitted that the enquiry officer also in his report has found that the gun shots were fired by accident and were not intentional. Thereafter after a period of more than three years, a charge-sheet was served. It is further submitted that even though the Director General, BSF vide order dated 23.06.2000 directed to conduct the enquiry into the negligence in accordance with the Act and the Rules, however the petitioner was charged for an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code contrary to the direction of the Director General, BSF. It is further submitted that a case of negligent firing cannot be converted into a case of voluntarily causing hurt. It has further been submitted that in terms of the directions issued by the Director General, BSF, the inquiry ought to have been held with regard to negligence of the petitioner. It is also argued that punishment has been imposed in violation of Rules that during the course of the enquiry and while imposing punishment, Rule 101 and Rule 102 of the BSF Rules have been violated. It is further submitted that no penal offence is made out against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in support of submissions refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Nawal Kishor Sharma Vs Union of India and ors, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 3607. 5. On the other hand, learned CGSC for respondents has submitted that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the writ petition and the writ petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that none of the part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In this connection, learned CGSC for the respondents has invited attention of this court to averments made in Para (c) of the objection on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that none of the part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In this connection, learned CGSC for the respondents has invited attention of this court to averments made in Para (c) of the objection on behalf of the respondents. It is also submitted that writ petition suffers from delay and laches in as much as the order of punishment was inflicted on the petitioner on 16.12.2004, whereas the writ petition has been filed after an unexplained delay of nine years in the year 2013. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on 2009 (16) SCC 656 , Huchamma v. State of Kartka and ors, AIR 2006 SC 1581, Karnatka Power Corp Ltd. V. K. Thanhappan, (2015) 0 Supreme (SC) 938, State of J&K v. R K Zailpuri and ors., (2014) 0 Supreme Court (SC) 53283, State of UP and ors. vs. Arvind Kr. Srivastava and ors., 1997 (6) SCC 255 , State of Haryana and ors. .Vs. Miss. Ajay Walia, WP(C) No.02/2012 titled Nihal Singh v. UOI and ors (Delhi DB), 2012 (IV) SLJ 1005, State and ors. vs. Constable Sanjeet Kumar. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Court of Enquiry has a fact finding enquiry and the enquiry against the petitioner has been held in accordance with the BSF Act and the Rules. It is also submitted that under Section 93 of the BSF Act, the petitioner can be convicted for lesser offence and in view of Sections 48 to 50 of the Act, more than one punishment can be imposed on the petitioner. 7. By way of rejoinder/reply, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that more than one penalty can be imposed under Section 50 of the Act only in case where the penalty of dismissal is imposed on delinquent officer. It is submitted that petitioner cannot be convicted and sentenced for an offence for he was never informed. It is also argued that no explanation has been offered on behalf of respondents as to why despite the direction issued by Director General, BSF, the petitioner was charged for an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that petitioner cannot be convicted and sentenced for an offence for he was never informed. It is also argued that no explanation has been offered on behalf of respondents as to why despite the direction issued by Director General, BSF, the petitioner was charged for an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that petitioner had filed an appeal on 10.02.2005 before the Director General BSF and thereafter filed mercy petition for review on 17.07.2008 thereafter in the fact situation of the case, writ petition does not suffer from delay and laches. It is also urged that the petitioners is resident of Jammu and under the BSF fact and the rules, he has right to file statutory appeal which he has preferred from the State of Jammu and Kashmir and has filed an application for review as well. Therefore, part of cause of action has arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has therefore, jurisdiction to entertain this petition. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding to deal with the matter on merits, I deem it appropriate to take a note of the order dated 30.10.2013 which reads as under: “Objections not filed. Heard. Considered. Admit, subject to objection as regard jurisdiction and maintainability, to be taken in counter affidavit. Counter affidavit within four weeks hereafter with an advance copy to other side. Rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter. List in the week commencing 16.12.2013.” Therefore, the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court as well as the question of maintainability of the writ petition is required to be adjudicated before proceeding to deal with the matter on merits. 9. The Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and others, (1994) 4 SCC 711 held as under: “6. Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. Therefore, the question whether in the instant case the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition in question even on the facts alleged must depend upon whether the averments made in paragraphs 5, 7, 18, 22, 26 and 43 are sufficient in law to establish that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.” 10. In the case of Union of India and others vs. Adnani Exports Ltd. and anothers, (2002) 1 SCC 567 , the Supreme Court held as under: “17. It is seen from the above that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application as in this case, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application 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 [pic]bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. If we apply this principle then we see that none of the facts pleaded in para 16 of the petition, in our opinion, falls into the category of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad.” 11. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Another (2006) 6 SCC 207 , the Supreme Court held as under: “7. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Another (2006) 6 SCC 207 , the Supreme Court held as under: “7. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court’s jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof.” 12. In the context of afore well settled legal position, averments made by the parties may be seen. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that this Court has territorial jurisdiction has referred to Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the writ petition and has submitted that the petitioner at the time of the filing of the writ petition was posted at Jammu wherefrom he has filed statutory appeal, therefore, this Court has territorial jurisdiction. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the writ petition read as under: 14. That the petitioner by the medium of representation submitted an appeal to the Director General Border Security Force, New Delhi by the letter dated 10.2.2005 and the concerned authority has not relied for that. Copy of the letter dated 10.02.2005 is annexed as Annexure J. 15. That the petitioner gave a mercy petition for review on GSFC Sentence dated 17.07.2008 to the Director General Border Security Force. But the respondents did not reply for that. Copy of the mercy petition of review dated 17.07.2008 is annexed herewith as Annexure K. 13. In the objections filed on behalf of respondents, in Para C, following averment has been made: “(C) That this Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as no cause of action took place under the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court as the GSFC trial of the petitioner was held at Dholchera, District Cachar (Assam). In the objections filed on behalf of respondents, in Para C, following averment has been made: “(C) That this Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as no cause of action took place under the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court as the GSFC trial of the petitioner was held at Dholchera, District Cachar (Assam). Further, the Statutory Petition submitted by the petitioner to DG SBF was considered by Competent Authority at FHQ BSF New Delhi and decision of Competent Authority was conveyed to the petitioner at BSF Campus Hazaribagh, while he was undergoing Field Engineering course. The Apex Court in the case of ‘Oil and Natural Gas Commission v/s Utpal Kumar Basu 1994 (4) SCC 711 , held that under Article 226 of the High Court can exercise the power to issue direction, orders or rules for enforcement of Fundamental Rights or for any other purposes, if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, not withstanding that the seat of Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued, is not within the said territories.” The aforesaid averment or fact has not been denied by the petitioner by filing the rejoinder, therefore, the same is taken to be admitted in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Naseem Bano (Smt) vs. State of U.P. and others, 1993 Supp(4) SCC 46. 14. In view of the pleadings of the parties and the uncontroverted stand taken by the respondents in their objection, it is evident that no legal right of the petitioner has prima facie either been infringed or threatened to be infringed by the respondents within the territorial limits of this Court’s jurisdiction. The petitioner has merely filed a statutory appeal during his tenure of posting at Jammu which does not amount to infringement of legal right of the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has merely filed a statutory appeal during his tenure of posting at Jammu which does not amount to infringement of legal right of the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mere posting of the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court taking into account the fact that entire action taken against the petitioner which is subject matter of challenge of this petition has been taken place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court would not confer any territorial jurisdiction on this Court to entertain the writ petition. The decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the case of Nawal Kishor Sharma Supra has no application to the fact situation of the case as the appellant in the said case was suffering from serious heart ailment which forced him to stay in the native place. Besides that, it is pertinent to mention here that the respondents responded to his representations and the same were communicated to him on his home address in Bihar. In the instant case, the representation submitted by the petitioner from the State of Jammu and Kashmir have failed to evoke any response, therefore it cannot be said that any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In the aforesaid context, the Supreme Court has held that part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Patna High Court, which is not the case here. 15. In view of conclusion arrived at by this Court that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it is not necessary to deal with the matter on merits. In the result, the writ petition fails. Needless to state that the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances.