S.D.Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition has been filed by Surendra Singh who was working as a Member -Secretary of the U.P. Pollution Control Board. He has challenged two orders -one dated 15th April, 1987 and the other dated 28th April, 1987. By the order dated 15th April, 1987, an order for transfer was passed against the petitioner by the Secretary Environment Department. Government of Uttar Pradesh, by which it was directed that the petitioner should take charge under the department of Environment. By the subsequent order dated 28th April, 1987, the Secretary Environment Department, U.P. terminated the petitioner's services. It is not disputed that both the orders were passed in Lucknow and the petitioner was also working in Lucknow. This petition was filed in this Court on 4.5.1987. It came up for orders on 4th May, 1987. This Court directed that the petitioner may serve the respondents 2 and 4 personally outside court and an ad -interim order was also passed staying the operation of the orders dated 15th April, 1987 and 28th April, 1987. The orders which were passed on the petition as well as in the stay application on 4th May, 1987 are quoted below: - - Stay Application: Put up for further orders at the time of admission of the writ petition. Meanwhile, operation of the impugned orders dated 15 -4 -1987 and 28 -4 -1987 (marked as Annexure Nos. 5 and 7 respectively to the writ petition) shall remain stayed. However, it will be open to the respondents not to take work from the petitioner but in that case, they shall pay his salary. Writ Petition: In addition to the normal mode of service, the petitioner shall serve respondent Nos. 2 and 4 personally outside the Court within two weeks. Affidavit of service may be filed within three weeks. Office shall hand over notices and necessary copies within 24 hours if possible. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. He prays for and is allowed, three weeks time to file counter affidavit. List for admission after three weeks." On 11th May, 1987, an application was moved on behalf of the U.P. Pollution Control Board for vacating the ex -parte interim order dated 4th May, 1987. This application was supported by a counter affidavit. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, an objection was taken to the effect that since the cause of action arose at Lucknow, the Lucknow Bench alone had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. This application came up for hearing before another Bench of this Court on 14th May, 1987. This Court on 14th May, 1987 modified the order to the effect that the petitioner shall not insist on working as the Member -Secretary, but he would get salary of the said post. The actual order passed on 14th May, 1987 was to the following effect: - - We have heard Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow and Sri R.H. Zaidi, counsel for the petitioner. There is some ambiguity in the interim order dated 4.5.87. Consequently in order to remove the same and for clarifying the position, we hereby direct that the petitioner would not insist on working as Member -Secretary. He would, however, get salary of the said post. Since the application dated 11th May, 1987 was supported by a counter affidavit, on 14th May, 1987 the petitioner was granted a month's time to file a rejoinder affidavit. On 7th July, 1987 another application was moved on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 supported by a counter affidavit with the prayer that the case be transferred to the Lucknow Bench of the High Court and also to vacate the ex -parte interim order dated 4th May, 1987. In view of this application, the matter again came before this Court on 21st July, 1987. The learned Addl. Advocate General appeared on behalf of the respondents and again urged that the Bench of High Court at Allahabad had no jurisdiction. The Bench, consequently, directed, after hearing the parties that the Addl. Advocate General shall file an affidavit giving hi" version on the question as to where the termination order was served on the petitioner. The order dated 31st July, 1987 is quoted below: The learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the Bench of the High Court at Allahabad has no jurisdiction. One piece of a crucial information is as to where the order terminating the services of the petitioner was served on the petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate General prays for and is granted 7 days time to file an affidavit giving his version as to where the termination order was served on the petitioner. The petitioner will have time upto the 11th August to file a reply. List on 14.8.1987. A supplementary counter affidavit was filed by Surendra Chandra Jain, Special Secretary to the State of U.P., Department of Forest and Environment. In this supplementary affidavit, it was categorically stated that the order of termination dated 28th April, 1987 was served on the petitioner on 28th April, 1987 in the room of the Secretary, Forest and Environment. Government of U.P. Civil Secretariat Lucknow. It was further stated that a cheque was also received by the petitioner himself on that date at Lucknow which was one month's salary in lieu of one months' notice.
(2.) IN reply to this supplementary counter affidavit, the petitioner filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit stating that the order dated 28th April, 1987 was not served on him at Lucknow. He farther set up a case that the order was served on him at Allahabad in the evening of 28th April, 1987 and as such, according to the petitioner, this court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Another supplementary counter affidavit was filed by Surendra Chandra Jain, Special Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment denying the allegations made in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. The allegations made in the supplementary counter affidavit by Surendra Chandra Jain were also refuted by another supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter came up for admission and a preliminary objection was raised by the Advocate General to the effect that this court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition the cause of action arose at Lucknow and not at Allahabad. We accordingly heard learned counsel for the parties on this preliminary objection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the averments made by the respondents that both the transfer order as well as the termination order were served on the petitioner at Lucknow. In the circumstances, it is necessary to consider this question first.
(3.) IN Nasir Uddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, : 1976(2) A.L.R. 23 (Sum.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the question as to when and in which circumstances, the petition will He at Allahabad or at Lucknow. It held that if the cause of action wholly arises within Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. Similarly if the cause of action arises wholly outside the specified areas in Oudh, then Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action in part arises in the specified Oudh areas and part of the cause of action arises outside the specified areas, it will be open to the litigant to frame the case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at Allahabad. It is consequently settled that if a part of the cause of action arises at Allahabad then this petition would be maintainable at Allahabad. But if no part of the cause of action arises at Allahabad and whole of the cause of action arises at Lucknow, then the Lucknow Bench will have the jurisdiction to entertain this petition.;