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


Rajan Singh v. U.O.I. Thru' Secretary, Mini. Of Defence. N. Delhi & Othrs - WRIT - A No. 57347 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18191 (27 October 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. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.57347 of 2006

Rajan Singh


Union of India and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Rajan Singh, petitioner, claims that he had been recruited in Army Air Defence Unit of Army Wing at DRO Lucknow on 24.03.2004, and he was sent for training at Army Air Defence Centre at Nasik. Petitioner had undergone training for 19 weeks, and thereafter was allowed and  sent for training for Driver Mechanical Trade, which is in the nature of advance training. Petitioner received injuries during training and was admitted in hospital. Petitioner claims that he had been treated in the hospital till 29.11.2004 and was granted sick leave. After recapitulating from the said injury on being reviewed, petitioner was declared fit. Thereafter, petitioner reported for advance training at his Centre on 23.12.2004. During the ongoing training, petitioner made complaint of some weakness. He was admitted on 13.01.2005  and kept under medical supervision for two months and was discharged, and petitioner was asked to be placed in low medical category. Petitioner has contended that he was declared fit for all duties by the Command Hospital, Pune. He was served with an order of discharge passed by Training Officer, AD Centre, Nasik. The said order was confirmed and ratified by Commandant Administration and Training Regiment, Army AD Centre, Nasik. Show cause notice dated 04.10.2005 was issued asking the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service. Petitioner has contended that as the order or discharge had already been passed, appeal was preferred and the same Officer has decided the appeal. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

On the matter being taken up, Sri (Dr.) A.K. Nigam, learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, representing  Union of India, raised preliminary objection qua maintainability of the writ petition by contending that the order impugned in the present writ petition has been passed at Nasik, as such this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition, and it is liable to be dismissed.

Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in the present case selection took place in U.P. at Lucknow and pursuant to the same petitioner was sent for training and once the order of discharge has been passed, the same will have the effect of striking the employment  number which had been allotted to the petitioner at Lucknow, as such writ petition is fully maintainable. In this connection reliance has been placed               on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court  in the case of Kushum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India AIR 2004 SC 2321, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the scope of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution comparing it with Section (20) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and has mentioned that the court in whose territorial jurisdiction cause of action fully or partly has arisen, would have jurisdiction to deal with the case, though the original order might have been passed out side the territorial jurisdiction of the said  Court.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the issue of territorial jurisdiction is being looked into. In the present case undisputed position, which emerges is to the effect that in India various selection centres were determined for recruitment, and as far as petitioner is concerned, he was selected from Lucknow Centre and sent for training at Nasik, where he completed his training successfully and was entitled to be accorded placement at any place within the territory of India. As far as Lucknow is concerned, it was merely selection centre and no cause of action has arisen there, for the simple reason that from Lucknow petitioner had been selected and sent sent for training. Cause of action, in the present case has arisen at Nasik, where impugned decision has been taken. Full Bench of this Court in the case of  Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India and others, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 108, after taking into account various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, especially in the context of clause (2) of Article 26 of the Constitution of India, has observed that cause of action is the bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant, and it must include some act done by the defendant, since in the absence of an act, no cause of action can possibly occur. Here, in the present case no act has been done by any one of the defendants  impleaded in the present writ petition within the State of U.P., as such no cause of action can possibly occur within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The judgment which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been discussed by the Division Bench of this court in the case of J.C. Thind vs. Union of India (2005), A.C.J. 2329. After considering clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Full Bench of this Court in  Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India and others, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 108, has taken the following view:

"In view of  the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it may be summarised that the cause of action is a bundle of facts and to examine the issue of   jurisdiction, it  is necessary that one of the inter-linked facts must have occurred in a place where the case has been instituted.  The said fact must have a direct nexus to the lis between the parties and in case the facts taken in the plaint/petition are denied, the plaintiff/petitioner has to prove the same. The fact must have direct relevance in the lis involved. It is not that every fact be treated as a "cause of action" in part and may create a jurisdiction of the court, in whose territorial jurisdiction it has occurred. The condition  precedent for creation of jurisdiction is  that the facts occurred therein must form an integral part of the "cause of action". A mere allegation by a plaintiff/petitioner  for the purpose  of creating a jurisdiction should not be enforced  for conferring jurisdiction. More so, a fact, which does not have any direct relevance with the lis but is made to occur only to defeat to statutory provisions provide for jurisdiction in order to deprive the court which must have territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, should not be accepted for the reason that the act has knowingly or purposely been performed to harass the defendant and deprive the court which has territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter and to try the case."

In view of the above discussion, as far as present writ petition is concerned, no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because selection proceedings had taken place at Lucknow, it cannot be said that part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Coupled with this, none of the respondents impleaded in the present writ petition have done any act within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, constituting cause of action/part of cause of action. Rightly in the present case  as no cause of action either partly or fully has arisen within the State of U.P., as such authorities at Lucknow, have not at all been impleaded as party, as no relief has been claimed against them.

Consequently, writ petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.          




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.