Full Text
W.P.(C) No. 10435/2006 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
CHARNJIT SINGH AULAKH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Jagjit Singh, Mr. Preet Singh, Mr. Sukhdev Singh and
Ms. Kiran Kaushik, Advocates.
Through Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Nitish Negi, Advocates along with Mr. Bhupender Singh, DC-CISF
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged a charge sheet dated 07.01.2005, an enquiry report dated 21.07.2005, an order dated 06.08.2005 issued by the Disciplinary Authority imposing on the petitioner punishment of compulsory retirement with minimum permissible pension, an order dated 25.10.2005 of the Appellate 2017:DHC:685-DB Authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner from the order of punishment, an order dated 27.02.2006 of the Revisional Authority rejecting the revision application of the petitioner and an order dated 25.04.2006 of the Director General Central Industrial Security Force from the Headquarters of the Central Industrial Security Force at Lodhi Road in New Delhi from within the jurisdiction of this Court, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for review of the order of punishment.
2. On behalf of the respondents, an objection has been taken to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition. The respondents contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as no part of the cause of action for the writ petition has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. It is, however, not in dispute that the Headquarters of the Central Industrial Security Force are located at Lodhi Road, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of this Court. Furthermore, an order dated 25.04.2006, which is also under challenge has been issued from the Headquarters of the CISF within the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides as follows:- “226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise 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, prohibitions, 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.”
5. The High Court has power to issue a writ to any authority located within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Article 226 (2) provides that a writ petition may be entertained by a High Court, if any part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of that High Court, even if the respondent is not located within the jurisdiction of the High Court.
6. If the authority has its headquarters within the jurisdiction of the High Court, it is immaterial whether the cause of action arises within or outside its jurisdiction. It is reiterated that in this case, the Headquarters of the CISF are in Delhi within the jurisdiction of this Court. The offer of appointment of the petitioner was also issued from Lodhi Road, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of this Court.
7. In M/s Sterling Agro Industries Limited vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in ILR (2011) VI Delhi 729, a five Judge Bench of this Court traced the history of Article 226 of the Constitution of India from the inception and till now and thereafter held as under:
15. Regard being had to the aforesaid historical backdrop, we shall presently proceed to deal with the Full Bench decision in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) to perceive how it has dealt with the concept of jurisdiction in the context of the conception of cause of action and the appreciation of the ratio of various citations by the Full Bench referred to by it. It is worth noting that the matter travelled to the Full Bench by reference made by the Division Bench while hearing a letters patent appeal from an order of the single Judge who had dismissed the writ petition summarily on the ground that significant part of the cause of action could not have been said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and merely because the order under challenge had been passed by the appellate authority located within the territorial jurisdiction, the same could not be sufficient enough for conferment of jurisdiction. The learned single Judge, to arrive at the said conclusion, had placed reliance on the decisions in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2007 (213) ELT 323(SC), Bombay Snuff (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2006 (194) ELT 264 (Del), Rajkumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director of Enforcement, Mumbai 154 (2008) DLT 28 and West Coast Ingots (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, 2007 (209) ELT 343 (Del). The Full Bench referred to the arguments canvassed at the Bar, took note of the legislative history of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta and others, AIR 1963 SC 1124, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254, Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 2 SCC 671 and Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 2966, the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Kishore Rungta and ors. v. Punjab National Bank and ors., 2003 (151) ELT 502 (Bom) and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Indian Institute of Technology v. P.C. Jain and Ors., 45 (1991) DLT42 and eventually held thus:
16. On a nuanced scrutiny of the decision of the Full Bench, it is clear as day that it has expressed the view which can be culled out in seriatim as follows:
(i) Once the Court comes to hold that it has jurisdiction, the plea that only an insignificant or miniscule part of the cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of the Court or that the substantial cause of action has accrued in another State is inconsequential.
(ii) The “sole” cause of action emerges when an order by the appellate authority situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi is passed and when the “sole” cause of action accrues entirely within the jurisdiction of this Court, declining to entertain the writ petition would amount to failure of duty of the Court.
(iii) This Court has jurisdiction under Article
227 since it has the power of superintendence over tribunals situated within its jurisdiction and judged in that light, it cannot be said that only an insignificant or miniscule part of the cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court.
(iv) Even if the doctrine of cause of action is adopted or invoked, the substantial part of the cause of action arises because the order under assail is that of the appellate authority / tribunal which is situated in Delhi.
(v) As the original order merges into the appellate order, the place where the appellate authority is located is also the forum conveniens.
(vi) The remedy under Article 226 being discretionary, the Court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction only when jurisdiction has been invoked with malafide intent. Be it noted, the Full Bench had also observed that as the appellate authority is situate at New Delhi, the Delhi High Court has the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to apply the principle of forum conveniens to refuse exercise of jurisdiction.
33. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to modify the findings and conclusions of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) and proceed to state our conclusions in seriatim as follows: (a) The finding recorded by the Full Bench that the sole cause of action emerges at the place or location where the tribunal/appellate authority/ revisional authority is situate and the said High Court (i.e., Delhi High Court) cannot decline to entertain the writ petition as that would amount to failure of the duty of the Court cannot be accepted inasmuch as such a finding is totally based on the situs of the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority totally ignoring the concept of forum conveniens. (b) Even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this court, a writ petition would be maintainable before this Court, however, the cause of action has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case of Alchemist Ltd. (supra).
(c) An order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated. Yet, the same may not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.
(d) The conclusion that where the appellate or revisional authority is located constitutes the place of forum conveniens as stated in absolute terms by the Full Bench is not correct as it will vary from case to case and depend upon the lis in question. (e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked in a malafide manner is too restricted / constricted as the exercise of power under Article 226 being discretionary cannot be limited or restricted to the ground of malafide alone. (f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinized by the High Court depending upon the factual matrix of each case in view of what has been stated in Ambica Industries (supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. (supra). (g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) “that since the original order merges into the appellate order, the place where the appellate authority is located is also forum conveniens” is not correct. (h) Any decision of this Court contrary to the conclusions enumerated hereinabove stands overruled.”
8. A Full Bench of this Court clearly held that even if a minuscule part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court, a writ petition would be maintainable before this Court.
9. An order of the respondent No. 1 constitutes part of the cause of action. Furthermore, it is reiterated that the authority is located within the jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as its Headquarters are located within the jurisdiction of this Court. We are of the view that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition.
10. The writ petition shall be heard on merits. We are informed that the writ petition is already listed in the Regular List. Let the writ petition remain in the Regular List.
INDIRA BANERJEE, J ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 03, 2017