Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner retired as Assistant Accountant Central Reserve Police Force from Gaya in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The relief claimed in the present petition is for a direction upon the Respondents to pay the balance amount of General Provident Fund and GIS with interest.
(2.) SRI R.B. Singhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents has raised a preliminary objection that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this petition as neither cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that since the Petitioner is a resident of district Ghazipur, this Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
(3.) A Full Bench of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and Ors. : (2004) 1 UPLBEC 108 held that since misconduct was committed at Calcutta and Summary Court Martial was also held at Calcutta, the entire cause of action arose at Calcutta and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court will have no jurisdiction and the observations are as follows: 12. In the present case it may be noted that the misconduct was committed at Calcutta and Summary Court Martial was also held at Calcutta. Thus the entire cause of action arose at Calcutta. We, therefore, fail to understand how a writ petition can be entertained at Allahabad High Court where no part of the cause of action had arisen. 13. In our opinion merely because the Petitioner is presently residing at Ballia this will not give jurisdiction to this Court in view of the Seven Judges Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India : AIR 1961 SC 532. In paragraph 13 of the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court observed: Now it is clear that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Article 226 does not depend upon the residence or location of the person applying to it for relief; it depends only on the person or authority against whom a writ is sought being within those territories. It seems to us, therefore, that it is not permissible to read in Article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court. That jurisdiction depends on the person or authority passing the order being within those territories and the residence or location of the person affected can have no relevance on the question of the High Court's jurisdiction. Thus if a person residing or located in Bombay, for example, is aggrieved by an order passed by an authority located, say, in Calcutta, the forum in which he has to seek relief is not the Mumbai High Court though the order may affect him in Bombay but the Calcutta High Court where the authority passing the order is located. It would, therefore, in our opinion be wrong to introduce in Article 226 the concept of the place where the order passed has effect in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court which can give relief under Article 226.... 41. We may mention that a "cause of action" is the bundle of facts which, taken with the law applicable, gives the Plaintiff a right to relief against the Defendant. However, it must include some act done by the Defendant, since in the absence of an act, no cause of action can possibly occur [Vide Radha krishnamurthy v. Chandrasekhara Rao : AIR 1966 AP 334; Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shankar : AIR 1969 All. 526, and Salik Ram Adya Prasad v. Ram Lakhan and Ors. : AIR 1973 All. 107 ] 42. In the present case no part of the cause of action has arisen in U.P. Hence in our opinion the writ petition is not maintainable in this Court. It is accordingly dismissed. The decision of the Division Bench in Kailash Nath Tiwari v. Union of India (Special Appeal No. 997 of 1995, decided on 9.1.2002) in our opinion does not lay down the correct law and is overruled. (emphasis supplied);