IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1979/2009 Decided on:19.6.2009 Chandu Lal Chandel. …Petitioner. Versus Union of and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Bhalla, C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. For the Petitioner : Mr. S.R. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memo of charges dated 3.5.2007. The Inquiry officer was appointed on 3.5.2007. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 1.2.2008. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner on 15.2.2008. He preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of dismissal and substituted it by reduction to the rank of Constable (GD) with immediate effect. The Inspector General exercising the powers under rule 29 (d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service. He proposed to confirm the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2 penalty of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner on 15.2.2008 in supersession of the order passed by the Deputy Inspector of General on 22.4.2008. The petitioner was given opportunity to make a representation against the penalty proposed. Vide order dated 9.4.2009, the Commandant modified the order dated 15.2.2008 and the words “dismissal from the service” was substituted by words “removal from service”. It is apparent from the pleadings that the cause of action had arisen at Nanpura (Girijapuri), which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. Mr. S.R. Chauhan, Advocate has argued that part of cause of action has arisen to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court since he has received one communication on 25.9.2008 in the State of Himachal Pradesh. In the present case the disciplinary proceedings were initiated while the petitioner was posted at Nanpura (Girijapuri). The impugned orders were passed by the competent authorities, including his removal within the territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. The receipt of communication on 25.9.2008 will not mean that a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The expression ‘cause of action’ has been succinctly explained by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alchemist Limited and Another versus State Bank of Sikkim and others, (2007) 11 SCC 335. Their Lordships have held as under: “16. It may be stated that by the Constitution (Forty- second Amendment) Act, 1976, Clause (1-A) was renumbered as Clause (2). The underlying object of amendment was expressed in the following words: "Under the existing Article 226 of the Constitution, the only High Court which has jurisdiction with respect to the Central Government is the Punjab 3 High Court. This involves considerable hardship to litigants from distant places. It is, therefore, proposed to amend Article 226. So that when any relief is sought against any Government, authority or person for any action taken, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises may also have jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions, orders or writs".(emphasis supplied) The effect of the amendment was that the accrual of cause of action was made an additional ground to confer jurisdiction on a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 17. As Joint Committee observed: "This clause would enable the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The Committee feel that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises in part only should also be vested with such jurisdiction". 18. The legislative history of the constitutional provisions, therefore, make it clear that after 1963, cause of action is relevant and germane and a writ petition can be instituted in a High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which cause of action in whole or in part arises. 19 The question for our consideration is as to whether the assertion of the appellant is well founded that a part of cause of action can be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Whereas, the appellant-Company submits that a part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court, the respondents contend otherwise. 4 20. It may be stated that the expression 'cause of action' has neither been defined in the Constitution nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It may, however, be described as a bundle of essential facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed. Failure to prove such facts would give the defendant a right to judgment in his favour. Cause of action thus gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. 26. In Union of India & Ors. v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. & Ors., (1984) 3 SCR 342 : AIR 1984 SC 1264, the registered office of the Company was situated at Ludhiana, but a petition was field in the High Court of Calcutta on the ground that the Company had its branch office there. The order was challenged by the Union of India. And this Court held that since the registered office of the Company was at Ludhiana and the principal respondents against whom primary relief was sought were at New Delhi, one would have expected the writ petitioner to approach either the High Court of Punjab & Haryana or the High Court of Delhi. The forum chosen by the writ petitioners could not be said to be in accordance with law and the High Court of Calcutta could not have entertained the writ petition. 34. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254 : JT 2004 (Supp. 1) 475, the appellant was a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its Head Office at Mumbai. It obtained a loan from the Bhopal Branch of the State Bank of India. The Bank issued a notice for repayment of loan from Bhopal under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The appellant Company filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Company approached this Court and contended that as the constitutionality of a Parliamentary legislation was questioned, the High Court of Delhi had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 5 37. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner appellant, would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a 'part of cause of action', nothing less than that.” The Apex Court has again considered the expression ‘cause of action’ in Eastern coalfields Limited and others versus Kalyan Banerjee, (2008) 3 SCC 456. Their Lordships have held as under: 7. "Cause of action", for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, for all intent and purport, must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It means a bundle of facts which are required to be proved. The entire bundle of facts pleaded, however, need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved is material facts whereupon a writ petition can be allowed. 8. The question to some extent was considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India ((2004) 6 SCC 254) stating: (SCC p. 261, para 18) "18. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the Court." 9. As regards the question as to whether situs of office of the appellant would be relevant, this Court noticed decisions of this Court in Nasiruddin v. STAT 6 ((1975) 2 SCC 671 : AIR 1976 SC 331) and UP. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of UP.5 to hold: (Kusum Ingots case ((2004) 6 SCC 254, SCC p. 263, paras 26-27) "26. The view taken by this Court in U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad ((1995) 4 SCC 738) that the situs of issue of an order or notification by the Government would come within the meaning of the expression 'cases arising' in Clause 14 of the (Amalgamation) Order is not a correct view of law for the reason hereafter stated and to that extent the said decision is overruled. In fact, a legislation, it is trite, is not confined to a statute enacted by Parliament or the legislature of a State, which would include delegated legislation and subordinate legislation or an executive order made by the Union of India, State or any other statutory authority. In a case where the field is not covered by any statutory rule, executive instructions issued in this behalf shall also come within the purview thereof. Situs of office of Parliament, legislature of a State or authorities empowered to make subordinate legislation would not by itself constitute any cause of action or cases arising. In other words, framing of a statute, statutory rule or issue of an executive order or instruction would not confer jurisdiction upon a court only because of the situs of the office of the maker thereof. 27. When an order, however, is passed by a court or tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words, as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ 7 petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the appellate authority." 10. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. ((2004) 6 SCC 254) has been followed by this Court in Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. ((2006) 3 SCC 658 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 98) stating: (SCC p. 669, para 26) "26, In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India ((2004) 6 SCC 254) a three-Judge Bench of this Court clearly held that with a view to determine the jurisdiction of one High Court vis-a- vis the other the facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be made and the facts which have nothing to do therewith cannot give rise to a cause of action to invoke the jurisdiction of a court. In that case it was clearly held that only because the High Court within whose jurisdiction a legislation is passed, it would not have the sole territorial jurisdiction but all the High Courts where cause of action arises, will have jurisdiction." In view of the observations made hereinabove and the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that no cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla),C.J. 19.6.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*