Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 15.01.2025
ARBIND YADAV EX CT GD UIN 1191774 .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Singh, Adv.
Through: Mr. Abdhesh Chaudhary, CGSC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:-
4. The Impugned Order dated 16.11.2023, terminating the service of the petitioner, has been passed by the Commandant, 9th Battalion, Sashastra Seema Bal (“SSB”), Balrampur, Uttar Pradesh. The appeal thereagainst, has also been rejected by the Deputy Inspector General, Gorakhpur, Bargadwa, Uttar Pradesh, vide the Order dated 03.04.2024. The petitioner himself is not a resident of Delhi.
5. We, therefore, enquired from the petitioner as to why this petition has been filed before this Court. He submits that the petition has been filed before this Court as the office of the Director General, SSB and the Ministry of Home Affair is situated at Delhi.
6. It is trite law that “cause of action” means a bundle of facts which are necessary for the petitioner to prove in order to succeed in the proceedings. It does not completely depend upon a character of the relief prayed for by the petitioner. A small part of the cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court may not be considered as a determinative factor, compelling the High Court to decide the matter on its own merits. In such a case, the doctrine of forum non conveniens shall apply.
7. As noted hereinabove, in the present case, the Impugned Order has been passed by the Commandant, 9th Battalion, SSB, Balrampur, Uttar Pradesh, and the appeal thereagainst has also been rejected by the Deputy Inspector General, Gorakhpur, Bargadwa, Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the cause of action has arisen at Uttar Pradesh. Merely because the office of the Director General, SSB and the Ministry of Home Affair is situated at Delhi, it will not make this Court a forum conveniens.
8. Applying the principle of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, therefore, we are of the opinion that this Court would not be the appropriate/convenient Forum to adjudicate on the grievance raised by the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the present petition in exercise of the discretion vested in us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed, while reserving the liberty of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J JANUARY 15, 2025/ss/sk/IK Click here to check corrigendum, if any