SRI KULA CHANDRA SINHA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS
LAWS(GAU)-1958-6-10
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 03,1958

Sri Kula Chandra Sinha Appellant
VERSUS
Union Territory Of Tripura And Others Respondents




JUDGEMENT

J.N. Datta, J.C. - (1.)THIS is a Writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the Petitioner who was a Sub -divisional Officer in the employ of Tripura Administration, seeks a Writ of Certiorari or any other suitable Writ for quashing (1) the order of the Chief Commissioner, Tripura dated 19 -1 -1956 dismissing him from service on the basis of certain charges for which a departmental enquiry was held and notice 10 show cause against the proposed order of dismissal was given, and (2) the order of the Government of India dated 17 -8 -57 modifying that order on appeal by the Petitioner, to one of removal from service.
The copy of the appellate order received by the petitioner through the Tripura Administration filed by the Petitioner (Annexure L), goes to show that the appellate order was of the President after consulting the Union Public Service Commission.

(2.)THE Union Territory of Tripura, the Chief Commissioner and the Union of India, New Delhi, have been made parties to the present petition. There can be no doubt that since it is the order of the President which is now in force, and with which has merged the order of the Chief Commissioner, the Union of India was rightly made a party, because relief can be given to the Petitioner only if the order of the President can be set aside. Under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the jurisdiction of a High Court in such matters extends only to the Territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction and not beyond it, and therefore the question arises for consideration whether in the present case the Central Government (President) can be said to be an authority situated within the Territories under the jurisdiction of this Court.
The point was dealt thoroughly in a recent case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and the judgment in that case, which is an enlightening one, shows that the learned Judges held as follows :

1. The Central Government cannot be deemed to be permanently located or normally carrying on its business within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

2. The record of the case which the Central Government decided was not before the High Court and could not be made available from any legal custody within the State.

3. The order of the State Government must be deemed to have merged in that of the Central Government.

(3.)THE order of the State Government could not be touched unless the order of the Central Government could be brought before the High Court and quashed.
4. That case (Surajmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh) is a Full Bench case and will be found reported in : AIR 1958 MP 103 (A).



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.