Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and to the learned Standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.
Learned Standing counsel and counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also raised preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court.
On perusal of the material brought on record, it has been transpired that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of 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."
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."
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......."
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.
Therefore, I decline to entertain this writ petition. The preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is tenable, accordingly this Court refuses to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and direct the petitioner to approach appropriate forum having jurisdiction.
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 :- 18.1.2021 GK Sinha