Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2313 (RAJ)

Mohd. Sajid Khan v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-08-26

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as the private respondent that the present petitioners were posted as Chief Medical & Health Officer at Jhalawar and Chief Medical & Health Officer at Jhunjhunu and vide impugned orders, they have been posted at District Hospital, Jhalawar and District Hospital, Jhunjhunu respectively. Therefore, the jurisdiction to hear the present petitions lie with Jaipur Bench of this Court in terms of Notification No. 1/J.B. dated 23.12.1976 issued by the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgments passed in Virendra Dangi v. Union of India: [(1992) Supreme(Raj.) 585] and Harsh Shiksha Evam Seva Sansthan v. State of Rajasthan [(2020) 1 RLW(Raj.) 108]. 3. Per contra learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the judgment passed in Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association v. Union of India & Ors.: [ (2001) 2 SCC 294 ] submitted that the question whether the cause of action in a case arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench/Seat or not has to be decided judicially case to case by the Court concerned. He submitted that the order impugned being passed by the Joint Secretary (Group-2) Medical & Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, the jurisdiction to hear the present matters would definitely lie at the Principal Seat. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Vivekanand Sewarth Sansthan v. The State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8631/2022) wherein this Court had interfered in the petitions wherein the petitioner-Institutes were from Jaipur. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, firstly, the order in the above writ petition was passed on 23.06.2022 when this Court was performing the functions of a Vacation Judge. Notification dated 23.12.1976 specifically provides that a Vacation Judge, whether sitting at Jodhpur or at Jaipur may hear any case irrespective of the district in which it has arisen for the purpose of deciding any matter which in his opinion requires immediate action. Secondly, the said petition was listed along with a bunch of writ petitions wherein the Institutes pertaining both to Jodhpur and Jaipur were the parties and the cause of action in all the petitions arose out of the common order passed by the State Authority. Secondly, the said petition was listed along with a bunch of writ petitions wherein the Institutes pertaining both to Jodhpur and Jaipur were the parties and the cause of action in all the petitions arose out of the common order passed by the State Authority. Therefore, this Court entertained the said petition well within its jurisdiction. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection and perused the material available on record. 6. The notification dated 23.12.1976 reads as under: "RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR NOTIFICATION No. 1/J.B. Dated 23-12-1976 In pursuance of the High Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 1976, and in exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, read with Sections 54 and 57 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to order that with effect from the 31-1-1977--- (a) all cases arising in the revenue districts of Banswara, Barmer, Bikaner, Bhilwara, Chittorgarh, Churu, Dungarpur, Ganganagar, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jodhpur, Nagaur, Pali, Sirohi and Udaipur (except such case or class of cases as may by special order be transferred to the Jaipur Bench) shall be disposed of by the Court at Jodhpur, and (b) all cases arising in the revenue districts of Ajmer, Alwar, Bundi, Bharatpur, Jaipur, Jhalawar, Jhunjhunu, Kotah, Sawai Madhopur, Sikar and Tonk (except such case or class of cases as may by special order be transferred to the Court at Jodhpur) shall be disposed of by the Court at Jaipur. Provided that a Vacation Judge, whether sitting at Jodhpur or at Jaipur may hear any case irrespective of the district in which it has arisen for the purpose of deciding any matter which in his opinion requires immediate action. Explanation.-A writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the first order pertaining to that case was passed by a court, tribunal or authority irrespective of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard and irrespective also of the fact whether or not there has been any modification or reversal of the order in appeal or revision. Sd/- Ved Pal Tyagi Chief Justice 23-12-1976." 7. Sd/- Ved Pal Tyagi Chief Justice 23-12-1976." 7. Analyzing the explanation as appended to the above notification in Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "In case of a dispute arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed and heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the same has to be found out by applying the test---from which district the case arises, that is, in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution." 8. In Virendra Dangi's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur while dealing with the same notification reiterated the proposition that whether a case arises within the jurisdiction of the principal seat of the High Court or within the jurisdiction of the permanent Bench of this Court would be decided only by the Court as and when occasion arises. In Harsh Shiksha Evam Seva Sansthan (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur dealing with the question of jurisdiction held as under: "14. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (supra), this court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the power of High Court in respect of their jurisdiction conferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that 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 Art. 226. The Apex Court has further held that the High Court is also required to first determine whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the writ jurisdiction or not. This court finds that the Apex Court has interpreted Art. 226 and has also considered the scope of defining the words "cause of action". The Apex Court has elaborately dealt in para Nos. 11, 12 & 13 of the Judgment where "cause of action" has been explained in detail and it has been held that a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases of suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. 15. 11, 12 & 13 of the Judgment where "cause of action" has been explained in detail and it has been held that a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases of suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. 15. This court finds that in the present case, only on the basis of orders being issued from Jaipur, it cannot be inferred that cause of action has arisen in part or whole in Jaipur and, as such, petitions can be entertained. 16. Relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this court by counsel for the petitioner, this court finds that the Division Bench has also reiterated the position for entertaining the writ petition, if part of cause of action arises in any of the districts within the jurisdiction of Principal Seat at Jodhpur or within the jurisdiction of permanent Bench at Jaipur. The facts of the present case clearly reveal that the petitioners who have their colleges in districts Banswara and Dungarpur are feeling aggrieved because of orders issued by the State Government and only on that basis, they have filed the present writ petitions, this court finds that Jaipur Bench-this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain these petitions and accordingly the writ petitions are not entertained." 9. In view of the ratio as laid down in the above judgments, it can be concluded as under: firstly, the jurisdiction would be decided on the basis of place where the cause of action of a particular dispute has arisen; secondly, it is the sole discretion of the Court to decide where that "cause of action" arose and thirdly, the test to be applied to decide the place of 'cause of action' is-from which district the case arises. 10. A perusal of the impugned order in the present matters shows that the same has been issued by the Competent Officer at Jaipur posting the petitioners from CMHO Jhalawar to District Hospital, Jhalawar and CMHO Jhunjhunu to District Hospital, Jhunjhunu respectively. In terms of the notification dated 23.12.1976, the cases arising in the revenue districts of Jhalawar and Jhunjhunu specifically falls under the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Bench. In terms of the notification dated 23.12.1976, the cases arising in the revenue districts of Jhalawar and Jhunjhunu specifically falls under the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Bench. Moresoever, the cause of action for the present writ petitions is the alleged posting order which evidently has been made from one office to the other office in Jhalawar and Jhunjhunu respectively therefore, this Court is of the clear opinion that the cause of action for the present disputes arose in Jhalawar and Jhunjhunu respectively and the same falling definitely within the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Bench, this Court at Jodhpur would have no jurisdiction to hear the present matters. The present writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this juncture prayed to withdraw the present writ petitions with liberty to file before the competent Tribunal. 12. The said liberty also cannot be granted in view of the fact that appeals had already been preferred by the petitioners before the Tribunal at Jaipur against the order dated 03.08.2022. The said appeals were withdrawn on 18.08.2022 after the present writ petitions been filed. The petitioners having already availed the remedy before the Appellate Tribunal cannot now again be granted the said liberty. The petitioners withdrew the said appeals before the Tribunal of their own choice and not because of any compulsion of law. Moresoever, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, in identical matters, a view has already been taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the matter of Sunil Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9269/2022 whereby it has specifically been directed that the respondents are not to appoint/promote any person on the post of Chief Medical & Health Officer who is not receiving the grade pay of Rs. 7600/-. It seems that the petitioners were already aware of the said view having already been taken at Jaipur Bench and therefore, instead of preferring the writ petitions at Jaipur Bench, they preferred the same at Jodhpur. This Court has witnessed that the said practice of choosing forums and filing the petitions at the place seeming favourable has become more prevalent since last some months. Such practice which directly results into multiplicity of the litigation and overburdening of the Courts as well as the Tribunals cannot be appreciated by this Court. This Court has witnessed that the said practice of choosing forums and filing the petitions at the place seeming favourable has become more prevalent since last some months. Such practice which directly results into multiplicity of the litigation and overburdening of the Courts as well as the Tribunals cannot be appreciated by this Court. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present cases the liberty as prayed for cannot be granted by this Court. 13. The present writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. 14. Stay petitions also stand dismissed.