RAJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this matter came up for hearing today, a serious contention by way of preliminary objection was raised by Shri Jaswal on behalf of the respondents. According to him, this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain this writ. Because no part of cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner within the jurisdiction of this Court and how this Court has jurisdiction, there is not a murmur in the whole of the writ petition. Thus, according to him, without going into other questions, this writ petition merits dismissal on this short ground alone.

(2.) On the other hand, Shri N.K. Sood, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this objection needs to be rejected. According to him, petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition, being CWP No. 617 of 1998. Then under the orders of this Court, revision filed by him was disposed of by the Authority concerned on 16-6-1999. Therefore, respondents are estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of this Court. Further according to Mr. Sood, plea of jurisdiction has not been raised as a defence in the reply filed to the writ petition. Lastly after five years of admission of this writ, throwing out the same on the plea of lack of jurisdiction will be too harsh to his client.

(3.) In order to deal with the question of jurisdiction, which in my considered view goes to the root of the case, it is necessary to refer to a few facts. These are as under :-