BALIA, J. - (1.) THESE two cases have been referred by the learned Single Judge to decide the issue about the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain petition under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution, for raising grievance of non payment of pension to the retired personnel of Indian Armed Forces which is payable in the State of Rajasthan either under option exercised by the retired personnel or because he is entitled to receive pension at the place where incumbent desired to settle after retirement.
(2.) LEARNED Single Judge was of the view whether in such case where a person has retired from a different State but resides and receives pension in that State, the latter State had the territorial jurisdiction, there are conflicting views of this Court, hence he referred the question as to jurisdiction to Larger Bench. In the present case the petitioner was appointed as Rifleman in Rajasthan in Rajasthan Rifles on 11th Dec. 57. He was discharged from respondent establishment. It is not even the case of respondent that the petitioner retired from any place out side State of Rajasthan. There is no dispute that if the petitioner is successful in his claim to pension, such pension shall be payable to him in Rajasthan. The learned Single Judge has primarily referred the case on the question of territorial jurisdiction on the ground that where the respondents authorities are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition cannot be entertained and in raising this issue a large number of decisions of this Court against Union of India in respect of ex-army personnel have been referred to by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge has referred to some of the earlier decisions to which we shall presently advert to for culling out the principle that a case where the respondents authorities are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition cannot be entertained. On the other hand, the learned Judge has also referred to a Bench decision of this Court in Balu Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (1), wherein a Division Bench has opined that in cases of denial of pension to army personnels this Court has a jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, even though the pension is to be released by the respondents outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, if it is to be received in Rajasthan. The only criterion with which the order under reference appears to have been influenced viz. the existence of respondent authorities, against whom a writ is sought, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is only one of the criteria which determines the territorial jurisdiction of this Court but is not the sole criterion. Under Article 226, when the Constitution came into force for the first time, conferred jurisdiction on the High Court of a State to issue to any person or authority including in appropriate cases in the Govt. `within those territories' directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant to and certiorari or any of them for the enforcement of the right of any of the party or for any other purpose. The power to issue writs only to the authorities or the Govt. within the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction resulted in a position where any authority issuing order whose office was situated beyond the territory of a State and beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court could not be proceeded in the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action arose or the effect of impugned action or inaction fell. In all cases against Union of India, therefore, the various High Courts of the States were held to have no jurisdiction unless the authority issuing the orders was situate within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. A petition challenging the Central enactment could be filed only in the Punjab High Court but later on in Delhi High Court, which exercised jurisdiction in respect of the territory of the Union Territory of Delhi, where the seat of the Central Govt. was situated. This led to constitutional amendment firstly by 15th amendment of Constitution by which clause 1-A was inserted in Article 226, which was later on renumbered as Clause (2) by the Constitution 42 Amendment Act. Since the 15th amendment of the Constitution, the two clauses of Article 226 which govern the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court read as under:- " 226. (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any or them. (for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose ). (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories". Thus, by the aforesaid amendment, the jurisdiction of the High Court was also extended in respect of such cases cause of action for which partly or wholly had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, notwithstanding that the person or authority against whom the writ was sought resided or had a seat outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The resultant position is that (a) the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the person or authority against whom relief is sought resides or is situate, will have the jurisdiction to issue writs or direction irrespective of the place where the cause of action has arisen in respect of the reliefs claimed; (b) so also, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action, whether wholly or in part, had arisen in respect of which the relief is sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, too will have the jurisdiction to entertain such petition notwithstanding the person or authority against whom the writ, order or direction is sought is not residing within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Consequently, where a Central Govt. employee serving in the State of Rajasthan is removed from service by an order made by the Authority at Delhi, the High Court of Rajasthan will have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition raising grievance about it besides Delhi High Court where the Seat of Union of India is situate. In other words, Delhi High Court will have a territorial jurisdiction because of Clause (1) of Article 226. The Rajasthan High Court will have jurisdiction because of Clause (2) of Article 226. It is not necessary that two conditions exist simultaneously.
(3.) IT is also not necessary that whole of the cause of action should have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court within the territories over which the Court is exercising jurisdiction but even if a part of such cause of action has arisen therein, such High Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition within whose territory any part of cause of action has taken place. In such cases more than one High Court can have jurisdiction to entertain such petitions, which could be exercised concurrently. Therefore, the examination of issue cannot be confined with reference to the place wherefrom the order has emanated or where the Authority against whom the relief sought is situate, but it also depends on where whose or any part of cause of action has arisen. The provision is very much akin to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure determining jurisdiction of civil Courts to try the suits. Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as under:- 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendents reside or cause of action arises.- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) an of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid acquiesce in such institution; (c) or the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation-A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principle office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. Clause (a) of Section 20, the place where the defendant voluntarily resides or carries on business or works for gain, determines the jurisdiction. That is like clause (1) of 226 whereunder also the place where the person or authority or the Govt. against whom a writ, order or direction is sought under Article 226 is situated, determines the High Court, which may exercise jurisdiction. Clause (c) of Section 20 has the amplitude of clause (2) of Article 226. Expression `cause of action' has been compendiously understood to mean `every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. ' It does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved. In determining the question of territorial jurisdiction where the cause of action arose, whatever defence may be set up by the defendant is not relevant. What is relevant is the grounds set forth in the plaint as a cause of action. In the oft quoted words of Lord Watson in Chand Kaur vs. Partap Singh " The cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. " ;