- (1.) Heard, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant and the respondent-Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. By the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2017 passed in WP(S) No.2206 of 2012 the writ petition has been dismissed as not maintainable on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials on record including the letter dated 26.03.2012 (annexure-3) issued by the Deputy General Manager, (H.R.), A.R.D.C., Design Complex Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. at Marathalli, P.O. and P.S.-Banglore, District - Banglore- 560037(Karnataka) addressed to the petitioner/appellant at his native place i.e. village- Mohalbani Nagina Bazar, P.O- Bhowra, P.S.- Sudamdih, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 828202 on the subject of cancellation of provisional offer of appointment for the post of Engineer(Design). That the order of cancellation of provisional offer of appointment of the petitioner was communicated to him at his native place within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand is not in dispute. What is urged on behalf of the respondent H.A.L. is that mere service of such order of rejection will not clothe this Court with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as neither cause of action nor any part of cause of action has arisen in the State of Jharkhand. In this regard learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the two judgments (1994) 4 SCC 711 ( Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors .) and (2002) 1 SCC 567 (Union of India and Ors. Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and Another).
(3.) Similar issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 329. In that case the letter of rejection of disability pension was received at native place of the petitioner where he was staying due to said disability. The Apex Court held that cause of action partly arose at the native place of the petitioner. Therefore, High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the petitioner received this letter has jurisdiction to entertain writ petition. Article 226(2) has been referred to in conjunction with Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Paras-9 to 17 of the report where the decision in the case of Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. (Supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. and Another(Supra) has also been discussed, are profitably quoted hereunder: "9. The interpretation given by this Court in the aforesaid decisions resulted in undue hardship and inconvenience to the citizens to invoke writ jurisdiction. As a result, clause (1-A) was inserted in Article 226 by the Constitution (Fifteenth) Amendment Act, 1963 and subsequently renumbered as clause (2) by the Constitution (Forty- second) Amendment Act , 1976. The amended clause (2) now reads as under: "226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs. --(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 , every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to 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 of 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. (3)-(4) * * *" On a plain reading of the amended provisions in clause (2), it is clear that now the High Court can issue a writ when the person or the authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the court's territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, for all intent and purpose must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression cause of action has not been defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Constitution. Cause of action is bundle of facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the suit before he can succeed. The term "cause 3 of action" as appearing in clause (2) came up for consideration time and again before this Court. ;