Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 12 (UTT)

Devendra Singh Negi v. Union of India

2018-01-05

ALOK SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vinodanand Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Sharma, Standing Counsel for the Union of India / respondents. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in Border Security Force on 06.05.1978. Later on, he was promoted to the post of Lance Nayak. Petitioner went on leave for 53 days w.e.f 05.08.1989, however, he could not resume his duties, after the sanctioned leave. Case of the petitioner is that he applied extension for leave vide application dated 31.10.1989, but on the said application no order was passed by the respondent - authority and subsequently, order dated 06.03.1990 was passed by respondent no. 3 (annexure no. 3) dismissing the services of the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner filed several representations for redressal of his grievances and lastly, he has filed revision against dismissal order under Section 113 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 which was rejected by the respondent no. 2 vide its order dated 13.03.2002 (annexure no. 7). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed present writ petition challenging the order dated 06.03.1990 (Annexure no. 3) and 13.03.2002 (Annexure no. 7) passed by respondent no.2 and 3 respectively. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by Shri M.A Khan, DIG, BSF, SHQ Aizawal Mizoram. It has been stated in counter affidavit that before passing the dismissal order, petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 10.01.1990 but the petitioner did not file any reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, therefore, the Acting Commandant, 105 B Battalion BSF, constrained to pass a dismissal order. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the respondent no. 2 had also rejected revision vide order dated 13.03.2002 in accordance with law. 4. From perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the dismissal order (annexure no. 3) was passed by Commandant, 105 B Battalion BSF, Dera Baba Nanak, Gurdaspur Punjab and the revision was rejected by the respondent no. 2. From the aforesaid fact it is clear that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the writ petition before this Hon’ble court is not maintainable. 5. 3) was passed by Commandant, 105 B Battalion BSF, Dera Baba Nanak, Gurdaspur Punjab and the revision was rejected by the respondent no. 2. From the aforesaid fact it is clear that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the writ petition before this Hon’ble court is not maintainable. 5. The petitioner in support of his case placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs Union of India reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 . I have carefully perused the judgment. The said judgment is not applicable in the present case because in the said judgment, respondents appeared before the Court, instead of opposing the said writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, had submitted that the petitioner was offered certain amount but he refused to accept the same, in those circumstances the Hon’ble Patna High court granted interim order, which was complied by the respondents. But in the present case, the facts are entirely different, therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the present case. 6. The petitioner further relied upon the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Kripal Singh Bankoti Vs Union of India reported in 2012 (2) UD 596 . I have also gone through the said judgment. The said judgment also does not help the petitioner, for the reason that in the said judgment part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High court, as the selection process of the petitioner in the said writ petition took place in Pithoragarh. 7. In the present case, in my opinion, no cause of action or even a fraction of cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, petition is dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. However, the petitioner can avail appropriate remedy before appropriate forum if so advised.