IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28789 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOPAKUMAR B.NAIR,P.B.NO.5710, HOTEL SILVERSAND COMPLEX,TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695036. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,RESERVE BANK BUILDINGS, BAKERY JUNCTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE CREDIT INFORMATION BUREAU(INDIA)LTD, (CIBIL)HOECHST HOUSE,6TH FLOOR,193,BACKBAY RECLAMATION,NARIMAN POINT,MUMBAI-400 021,REP;BY ITS CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.28789 OF 2010(W) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a businessman engaged in the business of Land Development. According to him, he had transactions with Banks, Financial Institutions and Non Banking Institutions, Companies, Housing Financial Companies etc. 2. In this writ petition, his complaint is against the 2nd respondent, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, having its office at Mumbai. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has been established as a composite bureau, catering to both the Consumer and Commercial segments, containing both negative and positive information of all borrower accounts by maintaining a database of such information. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent provides such information in the form of Credit Information Reports to a Closed User Group of its members consisting of Banks, financial institutions, non banking institution, companies, housing financial companies and credit card companies. WPC.No. 28789/2010 :2 : 3. It is the petitioner's case that the 2nd respondent is functioning as per the provisions of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005 and is under the direct supervision of the first respondent Board. On this averment, petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent is a `State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 4. According to the petitioner, he is enjoying credit facilities from various financial institutions ad that he was informed by his financial institutions that the credit information reports supplied by the 2nd respondent showed that the petitioner was a defaulter. Petitioner thereupon obtained a copy of the credit information report from a Bank, which showed that there are references about several loans which he did not avail of. Thereupon the petitioner required the 2nd respondent to correct the information and to provide accurate information to the credit institutions. Ext.P1 is stated to be a representation submitted in this behalf and complaining that there has not been any response from the 2nd respondent, this writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the 2nd respondent to update the credit information report, in so far as it concerns the petitioner, deleting all the WPC.No. 28789/2010 :3 : closed accounts and incorporating accurate track record of the credit facilities availed of and enjoyed by the petitioner. In the alternative, petitioner seeks a direction for consideration of Ext.P1 representation. 5. As already seen, second respondent is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It has its Registered Office at Mumbai and the petitioner has no case that the 2nd respondent has any activity or even an office within the territorial limits of this court, for this court to exercise jurisdiction over the 2nd respondent. Cause of action which has lead to the filing of the writ petition should arise within the territorial limits of this court if not fully, at least partially to entertain a writ petition. The expression “cause of action” though not defined either in the Constitution or in the Civil Procedure Code, may be described as the bundle of essential facts which the petitioner should prove before the court of law. For the purpose of deciding whether the facts averred by the petitioner would or would not constitute at least a part of the cause of action, one has to consider the pleadings in the petition. On such examination, even if at least a small fraction of the cause of WPC.No. 28789/2010 :4 : action is found to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, then it can be held that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. See in this connection the Apex Court judgments reported in Om Prakash Srivastava V Union of India and Anor. (2006(6) SCC 207), Alchemist Ltd. and Anor. V. State Bank of Sikkim & Ors.(2007(11)SCC 335). 6. In my view, on the pleadings, petitioner has not succeeded in showing that any part of the cause of action which lead him to file this writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of this court. If that be so, on the only ground that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, the writ petition has to be rejected. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on the judgment of this court in Officer in Charge, Army Medical Corps Records & ors. V. Rajesh U (2009(4) KHC 395) and contended that the respondent being a company working under the supervision and control of the first respondent, the Reserve Bank of India, writ petition can be filed in any court anywhere in the country. However, a reading of the judgment relied on by the learned counsel itself show that this court was concerned with the WPC.No. 28789/2010 :5 : maintainability of a writ petition against the Union of India and it was considering the omni presence of the Union of India through out the country that this court held the writ petition maintainable. However, as already pointed out, petitioner's grievance is against the 2nd respondent and relief sought is also against second respondent which is only a company under the Companies Act, 1956. In my view, this vital distinction renders the principles laid down by the Division Bench inapplicable to the facts of this case. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/