Civil Writ Petition No.17553 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17553 of 2010 Date of Decision:05.04.2011 Ashoka Alloys & Steels Limited ......Petitioner Versus Central Information Commission and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Anand Chhibbar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Nemo for respondent No.1. Mr.Alok Jagga, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be mentioned for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the Assistant Manager(Legal) of petitioner-Ashoka Alloys & Steels Limited, moved an application dated 15.04.2008(Annexure P-1) to the Public Information Officer, Central Bank of India, Central Office, Nariman Point, Mumbai(for brevity “the CPIO”) and sought the following information, invoking the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”):- “Information sought vide letter dated September 2006, the then General Manager(Recv.) has written a letter to Mr.Romesh Sabherwal, Director, Central Bank of India, A2/3, Multi Storied Apartments, Peshwa Road, Gole Market, New Delhi, regarding acceptance of one time settlement proposal of our NPA account. Copy of the said letter is required.” 2. The information was declined by the Assistant General Manager- cum-CPIO of Central Bank of India, Mumbai, vide letter dated 24.04.2008 Civil Writ Petition No.17553 of 2010 2 (Annexure P-2). The appeal(Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner was dismissed as well by the Deputy General Manager, Central Bank of India, Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-cum-the first Appellate Authority, by virtue of order dated 24.05.2008(Annexure P-4). 3. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-4), the petitioner filed the second appeal(Annexure P-5), which was dismissed as well by the Central Information Commission(for short “the CIC”) by means of impugned order dated 24.09.2009(Annexure P-6). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-6), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, pleading that although the petitioner was entitled to obtain the indicated information, but the CIC fell in error in declining the information, mainly, on the ground of exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act in this regard. 5. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 contested the claim of the petitioner and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, objection of territorial jurisdiction, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. In this regard, the contesting respondents have pleaded as under:- “That at the outset, it is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present writ petition. A careful perusal of the memo of parties would reveal that none of the respondents are within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. No cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The application dated 15.04.2008(Annex. P-1) was filed with respondent No.3 at Mumbai. The said application was replied to vide letter dated 24.04.2008(Annex. P-2) issued by respondent No.2 from Mumbai. Appeal was filed against Annex.P-3 vide appeal dated 03.05.2008(Annex.P-3) before respondent No.2 ata Mumbai. The said appeal was rejected vide order dated 24.05.2008(Annex.P-4) by respondent No.2 at Mumbai. Second appeal dated 10.06.2008(Annex.P-5) was filed by Civil Writ Petition No.17553 of 2010 3 the petitioner with respondent No.1 at New Delhi. This appeal was rejected vide order dated 24.09.2009 by respondent No.1 at New Delhi. Apparently, there is no order or any cause of action leading to filing of present petition which has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. In view of this, it is apparent that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the fact that this Hon'ble Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present petition.” 6. It will not of out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 7. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents has raised a preliminary objection of, maintainability of the writ petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Faced with the situation, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition, in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case M/s Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Versus Union of India and another, JT 2004 (Suppl.1) SC 475, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well, wherein it was observed that where a part of cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction, then that High Court also have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the present controversy. 9. As is evident from the record that the Assistant Manager of the petitioner-Company moved an application dated 15.04.2008(Annexure P-1) to the CPIO, Mumbai, which was declined by him vide order dated 24.04.2008 (Annexure P-2). Not only that, the petitioner filed the appeal(Annexure P-3) under Section 19(1) of the Act and the same was also dismissed by the Deputy General Manager-cum-the first Appellate Authority of the Bank, at Colaba Mumbai, by way of order(Annexure P-4). The appeal(Annexure P-5) filed by the petitioner was dismissed as well by the CIC by virtue of impugned order(Annexure P-6). Civil Writ Petition No.17553 of 2010 4 10. In this manner, all the authorities i.e. CPIO and the first Appellate Authority decided the subject-matter at Mumbai. Meaning thereby, as no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction, therefore, this Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed, being not maintainable in this regard. 12. Needless to mention that the petitioner would be at liberty to file the writ petition in the appropriate High Court, having the territorial jurisdiction in this context. April 05, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE