- (1.) Heard Sri N.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashutosh Upadhyaya, advocate, holding brief of Sri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of dismissal dated 23.9.1993 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 3; (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits for which the petitioner is entitled; (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner arrears of salary and allowances as per his entitlement; (d) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner; (e) Award costs of this writ petition to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was in C.R.P.F. He was posted at Neemuch (M.P.). The petitioner sought leave from 31.7.1991 to 10.8.1991 for ten days. The leave was granted. When the petitioner did not report after the expiry of the aforesaid period, a letter dated 16.8.1991 has been sent to the petitioner asking him to join but it appears that instead of joining, the petitioner sent two letters dated 22.8.1991 and 31.8.1991 seeking leave for 60 days and 30 days. However, it appears that even after the expiry of the aforesaid period the petitioner did not Join. On 29.12.1992, the Commandant 89 Battalion Neemuch (M.P.) has declared the petitioner deserter and an inquiry proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and Sri Sukhwant Singh 2-I/C of 89 Battalion C.R.P.F. was appointed as inquiry officer to inquire the charges framed against the petitioner. It appears that a notice was sent to the petitioner by the inquiry officer but he did not turn up, therefore, an ex parte report dated 25.6.1993 was submitted. The charges framed against the petitioner were found proved. On receipt of the Inquiry report, the Commandant 89 Battalion, C.R.P.R., New Delhi, 18 vide registered letter dated 16.7.1993 had sent the inquiry report and by letter of even No. dated 1.9.1993 and other by letter of even number dated 7.9.1993 called upon the petitioner to file reply but no reply was filed, therefore, the order dated 23.9.1993 was passed dismissing the petitioner from service. In the writ petition, it is alleged that against the dismissal order the petitioner has filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police, Force Neemuch (M.P.). The said appeal was returned to the petitioner with the advice to file an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Allahabad, U.P. The appeal was filed on 24.1.1994 before the D.I.G. C.R.P.F., Allahabad under Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. When the appeal could not be decided within the reasonable time, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 20204 of 1994. This Court directed the respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal of the petitioner within two months from the date of filing of the certified copy of the order. According to the petitioner, certified copy of the order was filed before the appellate authority but the appeal has not been decided. Apart from the aforesaid facts, nothing has been said about the appeal. In paragraph-17 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner was returned to his counsel as the same was not submitted by the petitioner in his own name but in the name of his advocate. In the present writ petition, neither the action of the D.I.G. C.R.P.F., Allahabad has been challenged nor any relief has been sought against him. The petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 23.9.1993 passed by the Commandant 89 Battalion, C.R.P.F., New Delhi, 18.
(2.) The Court is of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable in this Court inasmuch as no cause of action arises in the State of U.P. The petitioner was posted at Neemuch (M.P.). The impugned dismissal order has been passed by the Commandant 89 Battalion, C.R.P.F., New Delhi. 18. Therefore, either the cause of action arose at Neemuch (M.P.) or at New Delhi and not in the State of U.P.
(3.) A Full Bench of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others, 2005 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, 1961 AIR(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 Radhakrishnamurthy v. Chandrasekhara Rao, 1966 AIR(AP) 334; Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shankar, 1969 AIR(All) 526 and Salik Ram Adya Prasad v. Ram Lakhan and others, 1973 AIR(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, 2002 1 AWC 673 Special Appeal No. 997 of 1995, decided on 9.1.2002: in our opinion does not lay down the correct law and is overruled.;