Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Vinod Kumar Ex-Constable v. Director General C.R.P.F. & Others - WRIT - A No. 17128 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 10147 (23 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.22

Civil Misc. Writ petition No.17128 of 2002

Vinod Kumar Ex Constable            .............................Petitioner


Director General,

Central Reserve Police Force,

New Delhi & others                                        ............Respondents

Hon'ble V.C.Misra,J.

Heard I.P.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned additional standing counsel-Union of India  and perused the record.  Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged

A preliminary objection has been raised that this writ petition is not maintainable before this court for want of jurisdiction, as the cause of action arose at New Delhi and the appeal was filed at Chennai.  No cause of action wholly or on a part accrued in the State of U.P.  Some communication of the order in between the respondents and the petitioner does not call for the jurisdiction of this court.   As per the settled law, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by a full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2005) 1 UPLBEC 108

Learned counsel for the petitioner claims jurisdiction of the Court only on the ground of residence and communication of the impugned order and states that the aforesaid judgment has come in the year, 2005, whereas this writ petition had been filed in the year, 2002.  In my view this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold good, since it is settled law that the judgment and decision of the court, shall apply retrospectively if not specifically mentioned therein to be applicable prospectively and are applicable for all times unless and until set aside or overruled by higher court.

In this view of the matter, this writ petition being beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this court, is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly.  No order as to costs.

Dated: 23.5.2006





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.