- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 29.1.2014. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it has been passed by the Directorate General Border Security Force (Personnel Directorate-Rectt Section) New Delhi.
(2.) At the time of admission a preliminary objection has been raised by Sri R.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondents that this writ petition is not maintainable in the Allahabad High Court as the entire cause of action has accrued to the petitioner in Delhi and the impugned order has already been passed by the Authority sitting at Delhi. He has further submitted that merely because the petitioner was residing at Agra and the impugned order was communicated to him at Agra would not confer the jurisdiction upon the Allahabad High Court to entertain the writ petition and decide the same.
(3.) A reference has been made to Seven-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, 1961 AIR(SC) 532 has very succinctly laid down the law on the question of jurisdiction in para 13 which reads as under:-- "13. 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 Bombay 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.";