CWP No.1111 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 6.7.2009 SI/Exe Jagmal Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Ishwar Lal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.SK Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 27.2.2004 (Annexure P-2), order dated 19.11.2004 (Annexure P-3), order dated 21.7.2005 (Annexure P-4) as also the communication dated 7.9.2007 (Annexure P-7). Admittedly, the orders (Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4) were passed at Ahmedabad and Mumbai respectively. The respondents have raised preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition whereas the contention of the petitioner is that a legal notice was served from Chandigarh and its reply has been received vide Annexure P-7 and thus this Court has the territorial CWP No.1111 of 2008 2 jurisdiction to entertain this petition. At this stage, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the reply to the legal notice has been given at Chandigarh by Addl.Dy. Inspector General/WZ, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs), Mumbai and thus, this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Director General, Central Industrial Security Force-respondent no.2 to reply to the legal notice/reminder (Annexures P-5 and P-6) served by the petitioner. Mr. Sharma has no objection if this recourse is adopted. In view of the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and without deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director General, Central Industrial Security Force-respondent no.2 to reply to the legal notice/reminder (Annexures P-5 and P-6) in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon him. It is made clear that this Court has not decided the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in any manner and it will be open to the parties to raise this issue, if need arises. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 6.7.2009 MFK