- (1.) HEARD Shri Satyajit Mukerji, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S. K. Rai for the respondents.
(2.) THIS Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 30. 1. 2008, by which order the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Brief facts necessary for deciding the appeal are, the appellant was enrolled as Sepoy in the Indian Army on 21. 12. 1979. He was serving at West Bengal. Summary Court martial proceedings was held in West Bengal and vide order dated 19. 11. 1992, the appellant was dismissed from service. The appellant is said to have filed an appeal against the said order in the year 1993 which according to the appellant remained pending. He filed writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 41012 of 1994. The said writ petition was disposed of with the observation that petitioner having availed the statutory remedy of appeal a direction was issued to decide the appeal within four weeks. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 29. 8. 2006 the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the order dated 30. 4. 2007. Challenging the order dated 30. 4. 2007, writ petition was filed by the appellant which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. Shri Satyajit Mukerji, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appeal was sent from District Banda and appellate order was communicated to the counsel for the appellant at Allahabad which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Allahabad, hence the writ petition was fully maintainable in this Court. He has also relied upon a judgment dated 14. 9. 2007 in Writ Petition No. 12411 of 1996, Phool Singh Chauhan v. Chief of Army Staff for the proposition that the part of cause of action having arisen within the State of U. P. , the writ petition was fully maintainable. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment of Kerala High Court in P. P. Gopalari v. D. I. G. and another, 1985 (3) SLR 371.
(3.) SHRI S. K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant contends that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, hence the writ petition could not have been entertained. He submitted that the appellant was posted at Kolkata, West Bengal and the Summary Court Martial was held there in which the appellant participate and was ultimately dismissed form service. He submits that the appellate authority decided the appeal also at Kolkata and mere communication of the appellate order will not give a part of cause of action. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chabi Nath Raj v. Union of India and others, 1997 (1)UPLBEC 236. We have considered the submissions and perused the record.;