IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22958 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SAJEEV.G. B/B NO. 025241018, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, "BARBER" D/143 B.N. CRPF IMPHAL MANIPUR NOW RESIDING AT ALUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KUDAVOOR.P.O. POTHENCODE MANGALAPURAM, THIRUVANTHAPURAM KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE COMMANDANT, HQ/143 B.N, CRPF NEAR DC OFFICE LAMPHEL PET, IMPHAL, MANIPUR 3. THE DIG P GROUP CENTER CRPF PALLIPPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT, D/143 B.N. CRPF, NEAR DC OFFICE LAMPHEL PET IMPHAL, MANIPUR. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 22958 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.B.Harish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.Parameswaran Nair, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, a Barber attached to 143 Battalion of the Central Reserve Police Force stationed in the State of Manipur has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 and seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the second respondent to sanction the leave applied for by him by extending the leave period by another one month in order to enable him to look after his mother. The petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P8 representation and the third respondent to dispose of Ext.P9 representation. According to the petitioner, on receiving information that his mother was not well, he applied for casual leave (the number of days for which the casual leave was applied for is singularly lacking) with effect from 29.6.2009. He states that as the Commandant was on leave, the officer in charge of the Commandant sanctioned leave on 2.7.2009 and permitted him to go home. Thereafter, contrary to what transpired, the Commandant sent Ext.P6 letter to his mother informing her that the petitioner is a deserter and that he left his unit without leave being W.P.(C) No. 22958/09 2 sanctioned or the permission of the competent authority and that as soon as he reaches home, he should be asked to report back for duty. 3. In my opinion, the cause of action for this writ petition arose wholly within the State of Manipur, where the petitioner was on duty. The infringement of the petitioner’s right, if any, also took place in the State of Manipur, within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Manipur. The mere fact that Ext.P6 letter was sent by the Commanding Officer at Manipur to the petitioner’s mother who is residing in the State of Kerala will not, in my opinion, confer this Court with the jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. As matters now stand, the petitioner is on unauthorised leave. The authority competent to sanction the leave is the Commanding Officer, who is stationed in the State of Manipur. In fact the second prayer in the writ petition is to direct the second respondent to sanction the leave. The second respondent is also stationed in the State of Manipur. I therefore hold that this writ petition is not maintainable in this Court. It is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the court of competent jurisdiction seeking redressal of his grievances. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No. 22958/09 3