1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed on the following prayer :-
"(a) Issue writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to issue appropriate order exonerating the petitioner from the charge levelled persons similarly placed Sri Bimal Kumar Sonker having been already exonerated ordered to be promoted from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. the date Junior to him Sri Ramdhari Superintending Engineer (Civil) promoted to the post w.e.f. 1.12.2020 [Annexure 11] to the writ petition.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to give effect to recommendation of the selection committee constituted at the Government level relating to the petitioner promotion and issue simultaneous order to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. due date 01.02.2020 the date juniors to him have been promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide notification/ promotion of date 01.02.2021 (Annex. No.2) against vacant post forthwith with all consequential benefits.
(c) ..."
3. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent raised preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court as the petitioner is presently posted in Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and the territorial jurisdiction lies before the Allahabad High Court.
4. In rebuttal, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the orders of appointment, promotion, disciplinary proceeding etc were passed by the State Government, therefore, the writ petition would be maintainable at territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Nasiruddin Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal [1975 (2) Supreme Court Cases 671], relevant paragraph Nos.37 and 38 are quoted below :-
"37. The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court is incorrect. It is unsound because the expression "cause of action" in an application under Article 226 would be as the expression is understood and if the cause of action arose because of the appellate order or the revisional order which came to be passed at Lucknow then Lucknow would have jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the areas in oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of the person applying for a writ. In such case an adverse appellate order might be the cause of action. The expression "cause of action is well-known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises wholly within the specified oudh areas, it is indisputable that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter. If the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas in oudh it would be open to the litigant who is the dominus litis to have his forum conveniens. The litigant has the right to go to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. In such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular Court. The choice is by reason of the jurisdiction of the Court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. Similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen part within specified areas in oudh and part outside the specified oudh areas, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings either at Allahabad or Lucknow. The Court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Court rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action.
38. To sum up. Our conclusions are as follows. First there is no permanent seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The seats at Allahabad and at Lucknow may be changed in accordance with the provisions of the order. Second, the Chief Justice of the High Court has no power to increase or decrease the areas in oudh from time to time. The areas in oudh have been determined once by the Chief Justice and, therefore, there is no scope for changing the areas. Third. the Chief Justice has power under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order to direct in his discretion that any case or class of cases arising in oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Any case or class of cases are those which are instituted at Lucknow. The interpretation given by the High Court that the word "heard" confers powers on the Chief Justice to order that any case or class of cases arising in oudh areas shall be instituted or filed at Allahabad, instead of Lucknow is wrong. The word "heard" means that cases which have already been instituted or filed at Lucknow may in the discretion of the Chief Justice under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order he directed to be heard at Allahabad. Fourth, the expression "cause of action" with regard to a civil matter means that it should be left to the litigant to institute cases at Lucknow Bench or at Allahabad Bench according to the cause of action arising wholly or in part within either of the areas. If the cause of action arises wholly within oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. Similarly, if the cause of action arises wholly outside the specified areas in oudh then Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action in part arises in the specified oudh areas and part of the cause of action arises outside the specified areas, it will be open to the litigant to frame the case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at Allahabad. Fifth, a criminal case arises where the offence has been committed or otherwise as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. That will attract the jurisdiction of the Court at Allahabad or Lucknow. In some cases depending on the facts and the provision regarding jurisdiction, it may arise in either place."
5. After having heard the rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the contents placed before this Court in the shape of a typed note as well as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sri Nasiruddin (Supra).
6. In the case of Sri Nasiruddin (Supra), cause of action in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was under consideration on the ground that the appellate order or the revisional order which came to be passed at Lucknow then Lucknow would have the jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the area of Oudh. Here in the present case, the petitioner is working at Ghaziabad and till date, no order whatsoever has been passed at Lucknow in regard to the promotion, disciplinary proceeding etc, therefore, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Sri Nasiruddin (Supra) is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. The typed note produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner discloses that it is the State Government who is the appointing authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding as well as to grant promotion on the higher post, therefore his submission that although there is no order cancelling the claim of the petitioner, writ would lie within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
7. In the opinion of the Court, till there is no order passed by the State Government and the petitioner is discharging his duties at Ghaziabad, no jurisdiction would lie before this Court at Lucknow.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, in absence of any cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, I am of the view that the present writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the Full Bench Judgement in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India & others reported in [(2005) 1 UPLBEC 108, the Full Bench of this Court in paras-39, 40 and 41 has observed as under:-
"39. Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it is a statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law.
40. For the reasons given above we are of the opinion that the Chief of Army Staff can only be sued either at Delhi where he is located or at a place where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
41. We may mention that a "cause of action" is the bundle of facts which, taken with the law applicable., gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. However, it must include some act done by the defendant, since in the absence of an act, no cause of action can possibly occur."
9. In case of U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad vs. State of U.P. reported in (1995) 4 SCC 738, the Apex Court in para-14 has held as under:-
"14. .....The territorial jurisdiction of a Court and the "cause of action" are interlinked. To decide the question of territorial jurisdiction it is necessary to find out the place where the "cause of action" arose. We, with respect, reiterate that the law laid down by a four-Judge Bench of this Court in Nasiruddin case holds good even today despite the incorporation of an Explanation to Section 141 to the Code of Civil Procedure."
10. In case of Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640, the Apex Court in para-38 has held as under:-
"38. "Cause of action" is a phenomenon well understood in legal parlance. Mohapatra, J. has well delineated the import of the said expression by referring to the celebrated lexicographies. The collocation of the words "cause of action, wholly or in part, arises" seems to have been lifted from Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which section also deals with the jurisdictional aspect of the courts. As per that section the suit could be instituted in a court within the legal limits of whose jurisdiction the "cause of action wholly or part arises......."
11. This Court has also decided the same controversy in Writ Petition No. 10001 (SS) of 2018 (Ambrish Kumar Saxena vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.(Karmik) U.P. Sectt. Lko. & Ors.) decided on 11.4.2018.
"9. Therefore, I decline to entertain this writ petition. The preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is tenable, accordingly this Court refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and direct the petitioner to approach appropriate forum having jurisdiction."
12. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It shall be open for the petitioner to file appropriate petition before the Court having territorial jurisdiction.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Gautam