Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
1. We have heard Shri S.K. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Shri Vikas Budhwar appears for the applicant-respondent no.1.
2. Shri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant-respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition in the High Court at Allahabad. He states that the cause of action to the applicant-respondent no.1, Shri Raj Kumar had arisen, when he was posted at Roorkie, District Hardwar in the State of Uttrakhand, and thus even if the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has jurisdiction over the State of UP and State of Uttrakhand, has decided the Original Application, a writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal would be maintainable in the High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital.
3. The applicant-respondent no.1 had joined the service on 18.4.1979 as Painter in Unit 57 (I) Supply Platoon Army Supply Corps. He was, along with some other persons, rendered surplus and consequently he was transferred to the Military Engineering Services on 28.4.1982, and was posted as Painter. At the time he was posted as Painter in M.E.S., the respondents issued a Circular dated 15.10.1984, whereby a policy decision was taken by the Government of India for upgradation of the certain posts. Those incumbents, who had been employed in Semi Skilled Grade, and had qualified the trade test subject to the condition, and had rendered a minimum of three years of service, were to be considered for promotion/upgradation in the Skilled Grade. The applicant prayed for quashing the orders dated 31.10.2000, 12.4.2001 and 22.3.2002, denying him upgradation, the last of which was passed at Roorkie, District Haridwar, in the State of Uttrakhand.
4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad allowed the Original Application No. 922 of 2004 (Raj Kumar vs. Union of India and others) on 28.10.2009; quashed the orders under challenge with directions to the respondents to consider the case of applicant for grant of similar benefits for upgradation from the date when his junior was granted the upgradation without consequential benefits.
5. Under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal is still to be constituted in the State of Uttrakhand. The Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad, is exercising jurisdiction over the matters arising from the State of Uttrakhand. A Circuit Bench of the Tribunal visits and holds sittings at Nainital periodically to hear and decide the cases.
6. It is submitted by Shri Vikas Budhwar that since the orders against which Original Application was filed in the Tribunal originated from the authority at Roorkie, District Haridwar in the State of Uttrakhand, the writ petition would lie in the High Court of State of Uttrakhand at Nainital and not at Allahabad. He has relied upon Ambika Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 6 SCC 769 in which, relying upon Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd vs. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd (1994) 1 SCC 34; C.I.T. v. Sivaramakrishna Iyer AIR 1969 Mad 300 in support of his objections.
7. Shri S.K. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has referred to the observations made in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1125, in which it was held by the Supreme Court that a writ petition would be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the Tribunal is situate. He refers to paragraphs 90, 91 and 99 of the judgment, in which it was observed that while saving the power of judicial review of legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, it will ensure that frivolous claims are filtered out through the process of adjudication in the Tribunal. The High Court will also have the benefit of a reasoned decision on merits, which will be of use to it in finally deciding the matter. It was observed in paragraph 91 that all such decisions of the tribunals, whether it created pursuant to Article 323-A or Article 323-B of the Constitution of India, would be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls.
8. In Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) the Supreme Court held that where a Tribunal (Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi) exercises jurisdiction over the three States and there are High Courts in each State, in the event, the aggrieved person is treated to be the dominus litus, as a result whereof, he elects to file the appeal before one or the other High Court, the decision of the High Court shall be binding only on the authorities which are within its jurisdiction. It will only be of persuasive value on the authorities functioning under a different jurisdiction. If the binding authority of a High Court does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction and the decision of one High Court would not be a binding precedent for other High Courts or Courts or Tribunals outside its territorial jurisdiction, some sort of judicial anarchy shall come into play. An assessee, affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay, may invoke the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and which might suit him and thus he would be able to successfully evade the law laid down by the High Court at Bombay.
9. The Supreme Court further observed that when an appeal is provided under a statute, Parliament must have thought of one High Court. It is a different matter that by way of necessity, a Tribunal may have to exercise jurisdiction over several States but it does not appeal to any reason that Parliament intended, despite providing for an appeal before the High Court, that appeals may be filed before different High Courts at the sweet will of the party aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal.
10. In terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also Article 226 (2), the High Court would exercise its discretionary jurisdiction as also power to issue writ of certiorari in respect of the orders passed by the Subordinate Courts within its territorial jurisdiction or if any cause of action has arisen, but the same tests cannot be applied when the appellate court exercises a jurisdiction over Tribunal situated in more than one State. In such a situation, the High Court situated in the State where the cause of action has arisen, should be considered to be the appropriate High Court. The analogy can also be drawn from the conferment of the jurisdiction on the District Court. It is inconceivable that the jurisdiction of the District Court would be exercised beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the District, save and except in such matters where the law specifically provides therefor.
11. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. S. Sivaramakrishna Iyer 1968 (70) ITR 680 it was held that where a Tribunal has jurisdiction over more States than one, and it has got to make a choice, in the absence of any statutory provision, the principles of Section 64, that is to say, the place where the assessee carries on his business, profession or vocation or resides, would be the High Court, which will have jurisdiction. A similar view was taken in Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1978 (113) ITR 817 (Delhi).
12. In Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd. (supra) while dealing with the scope of expression "the High Court" under Section 10F of the Companies act, 1956 the Supreme Court took the same view. Where the orders have been passed by the Company Law Board sitting at New Delhi, the appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 would lie in the High Court where the registered office of the company is situate. The High Court would mean the High Court having the jurisdiction in relation to a place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate as indicated in Section 2 (11) read with Section 1A thereof.
13. In L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra) the observation made by the Supreme Court that High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 pursuant to Article 323A or Article 323B would be available before a Division Bench of the High Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction the tribunal falls, was not made in reference to an event, when the Tribunal exercises jurisdiction in respect to two or more States. The question, whether in such case only the High Court of the State in which the Tribunal situate, will have jurisdiction over the matters, was not subject matter of consideration.
14. In the present case, the cause of action had arisen to the applicant at Roorkie in District Haridwar, Uttrakhand which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital. Since at present no Tribunal has been constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the State of Uttrakhand, and the Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad is entertaining the matters relating to State of Uttrakhand, the matters, in which the cause of action has arisen in the State of Uttrakhand, may be entertained by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad and heard at the Circuit Bench at Nainital, but in all such cases the High Court for the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 would be the High Court in the territory of which the cause of action has originally arisen to the applicant.
15. The jurisdiction, where a part of cause of action has arisen in the State where the High Court is situate, vests in the High Court of the said State. On the facts of the present case, we cannot say that a part of cause of action had arisen to the applicant-respondent no.1 in the State of UP. The records of the case are maintained in the State of Uttrakhand and the orders or any consequential orders to be passed by the Tribunal and the High Court will have to be implemented in the State of Uttrakhand.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal can be challenged under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court in which the original cause of action had arisen to the applicant, against which the applicant had approached the Tribunal.
17. The writ petition is consequently dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to file a writ petition in the High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital. The registry will return the certified copy of the order of the Tribunal, to the applicant.
Order Date :- 1.2.2012 RKP