HIGH COURT OF DELHI
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. -
(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.08.2005 whereby the petitioner is required to show cause as to why his appeal dated 15.4.2002 be not rejected with ensuing consequences. The petitioner has also been directed to reply within the stipulated time and on failure to do so, the matter of the petitioner to be considered by the competent authority, accordingly. The petitioner has also sought directions against respondent No.3/Shri V.K. Goel, Managing Director of NHDC for grant of due promotion with consequential benefits. Counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present petition before Delhi High Court due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the letter dated 24.08.2005 which is impugned in the present writ petition to contend that the said letter was issued by the respondent/corporation from its registered office at Lucknow. He also states that the said letter is addressed to the petitioner while he was posted as Manager (Commercial) at Regional Office, Bhopal. Counsel for the respondent states that the head office and registered office of the Corporation is at Lucknow and not even a branch office of the corporation is at Delhi. Counsel for the respondent contends that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the petitioner within the jurisdiction of Delhi and, therefore, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. Counsel for the respondent has also drawn my attention to various other petitions filed by the petitioner before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. Writ Petition No.50(S/B) of 1999 was filed by the petitioner before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 24.2.1999, in this writ petition, the petitioner had challenged his suspension order dated 13.10.1997. Another writ petition being W.P. No. 1440/1998 (S/B) was filed by the petitioner and the same was decided by Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court vide order dated 23.09.1998 and similarly W.P. No.646 (SB) of 1999 was also preferred by the petitioner and the same was also disposed of by Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court vide order dated 24.4.2000.
(2.) Counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner has been taking his legal remedies against suspension order, chargesheet and for claiming certain other reliefs by moving the Court of Allahabad High Court. This fact alone, would show that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, the counsel for the respondent contends.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, states that this Court has jurisdiction as in the present case, the Union of India has been impleaded as respondent No.1 which has a seat in Delhi. Counsel for the petitioner also states that respondent No.2, Ex-Officio Chairman of the Corporation, also has an office in Delhi. Counsel for the petitioner also contends that the Office of Association of Corporation and Apex Society (ACASH) where the petitioner was posted on deputation is at Delhi. He also submits that suspension order was passed and issued in Delhi. He further submits that both the disciplinary inquiries took place in Delhi and office of the Vigilance Department at whose instance the inquiry was initiated is also in Delhi and, therefore, he states that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.