IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28121 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.CHANDRASENAN, UDC, EXCISE-1125561, RESIDING AT CHANDRALAYAM, ALUMUKKU VILLAGE, PIRAVANTHOOR P.O. PUNALOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, B.WING, 4TH FLOOR, SENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 1. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER ROADS, SENA SADAK BHAWAN, RING ROAD DELHI CANTT, NEW DELHI. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HEADQUARTERS, PROJECT CHETAK, C/O.56 APO 4. THE COMMANDER 45 BRTF (GREF) C/O.56 APO 5. THE OFFICER COMMANDING, RCC, C/O.56 APO 6. THE COMMANDER GREF CENTRE DIGHI CAMP, PUNE. BY ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28121 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an ex-service man. While in service in State of Rajasthan, the punishment of barring three increments was imposed on him, by Ext.P7 order dated 28.12.1998. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal. By Ext.P8 order passed on 13.2.1999, the third respondent herein, the appellate authority, reduced the punishment to withholding of one increment from the date on which Ext.P7 order was served on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged Exts.P7 and P8 orders by filing W.P.(C) No.6169 of 2001 in the High Court of Gauhati. This was because the petitioner had, after Ext.P8 order was passed, been transferred to another station within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court of Gauhati. By Ext.P10 judgment delivered on 19.9.2007, the said writ petition was dismissed on the short ground that the High Court of Gauhati does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ W.P.(C) No.28121 of 2008 2 petition, reserving liberty to approach the appropriate Court where the cause of action arose. The petitioner has, in this writ petition, challenged Exts.P7 and P8 orders. 2. Exts.P7 and P8 orders were passed on 28.12.1998 and 13.2.1999 respectively, while the petitioner was in service in the State of Rajasthan. The cause of action for this writ petition is the punishment imposed on the petitioner by Ext.P7 as modified in Ext.P8 order. A Full Bench of this Court has in Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commandant (1999 (3) KLT 629 (FB) held that the fact that the petitioner will have to suffer the consequence of the punishment imposed on him in his native State is not a fact which constitutes the bundle of facts giving rise to a cause of action in his favour. Applying the principle laid down by the Full Bench in the aforesaid decision to the facts of this case, I am of the considered opinion that this Writ Petition is not maintainable in this Court. As noticed by the High Court of Gauhati in Ext.P10 judgment, the cause of action for the writ petition has arisen wholly within the State of Rajasthan. I, W.P.(C) No.28121 of 2008 3 therefore, hold that this writ petition is not maintainable in this Court. Reserving liberty with the petitioner to move the appropriate Court seeking redressal of his grievances, this Writ Petition is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.