R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT here filed a writ petition before this Court at Allahabad for quashing the order dated 25.11.1991, terminating his services, passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Pratapgarh. Further prayers for regularisation of his services and for payment of salary to him. have also been made. in the writ petition, State of Uttar Pradesh through the Chief Conservator of Forest, Lucknow, the Commissioner of Forest, South Circle, Allahabad and Divisional Forest Officer, Pratapgarh, were impleaded as Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, respectively. Grievance of the Respondent in his writ petition was against the Divisional Forest Officer, Pratapgarh, who has passed the impugned order dated 25.11.1991. This writ petition was disposed of by learned Single Judge with a direction to Respondent No. 2, viz. Commissioner of Forest, Allahabad, to decide the representation of the Petitioner -Respondent. Against this order of learned Single Judge, an appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. Learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition before this Court at Allahabad. This objection is liable to be accepted.
(2.) THE Respondent herein was appointed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Pratapgarh, who, according to the Respondent himself, is his appointing authority and it is Divisional Forest Officer, Pratapgarh who has passed the impugned order. Writ petition cannot be filed before this Court at Allahabad against an order passed by an officer at Pratapgarh in view of proviso to paragraph 14 of U.P. High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Order), according to which cases arising in Avadh areas can be filed before Lucknow Bench of this Court only. Supreme Court in Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal : AIR 1976 SC 331, while considering first proviso to para 14 of the Order, has laid down as under: The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court is incorrect. It is unsound because the expression "cause of action" in an application under Article 226 would be as the expression is understood and if the cause of action arose because of the appellate order or the revisional order which came to be passed at Lucknow then Lucknow would have jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the areas in Oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of the person applying for a writ. in such case an adverse appellate order might be, the cause of action. The expression "cause of action" is well known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have Jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises wholly within the specified Oudh areas, it is indisputable that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter. If the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas in Oudh it would be open to the litigant who is the dominus litis to have his forum convenience. The litigant has the right to go to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. In such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular Court. The choice is by reason of the Jurisdiction of the Court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the Jurisdiction of the Court. Similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen partly within specified areas in Oudh and partly outside the specified Oudh areas, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings either at Allahabad or Lucknow. The Court will find out in each case whether the Jurisdiction of the Court is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action. In view of law laid down by Supreme Court, writ petition can be filed before this Court either at Allahabad or at Lucknow if the cause of action arises in part in the areas in and outside Oudh. In the instant case, the impugned order was passed by an officer at Pratapgarh and it is his order by which the Petitioner -Respondent is aggrieved. There is no order passed by any authority outside the areas of Oudh. This Court at Allahabad, as such, could not have entertained the writ petition. That apart, question of regularisation of service of the Respondent, cannot arise unless the order terminating his service, is set aside. This order can only be set aside by Lucknow Bench of this Court. Hence no direction can be issued for regularisation of service or for consideration of the representation by this Court at Allahabad. In the instant case, learned single Judge has directed the Commissioner of Forest, South Circle, Allahabad, to decide the representation of the Petitioner Respondent. Learned standing counsel has stated that no officer of such designation exists in Allahabad.
(3.) FOR the reasons given above, this writ petition is not maintainable before this Court at Allahabad. Learned Single Judge, as such, was not Justified in deciding the writ petition.;