IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.9641 OF 2011 Date:13-04-2011 Between:- Md.Hussain .. Petitioner And The Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar Sector, Patna, rep.by its Inspector General, Patna, Bihar. .. Respondent ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to, and quashing, the order passed by the respondent No.R.XIII-1/MDH/08-BS-EC-III, dated 16-10-2008, and consequently, to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits or to suitably modify the order under its Revision enabling the petitioner to get pension and other retirement and monitory benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Constable/Car Driver in the C.R.P.F., an Armed Force, with effect from 08.04.1991. While he was discharging his duties, the Commandant 4th BN-CRPF Mokamghat, Patna passed orders P.VIII.3/01-EC.II, dated 26.09.2001, aggrieved by which, he preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Patna, Bihar, who dismissed it, vide his proceedings P.VIII.MD(4)/2008-EC-1, dated 21- 04-2008. Again, he preferred a statutory Revision before the respondent herein, who dismissed the same, vide the impugned proceedings. By virtue of the order passed by the respondent herein, dated 16-10-2008, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the copy of the order impugned has been communicated to the place of residence of the petitioner at Warangal, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court, and that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Warangal in the state of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, this Court is having a jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent contended that since not even a part of cause of action in respect of dispute in question arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition is not maintainable. For that purpose, the learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on a decision reported in Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and others[1], wherein it is held at para No.6 as under: “It is well settled that the expression “cause of action” means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In Chand Kour v. Partab Singh [ILR 91889) 16 Cal 98, 102 15 IA 156], Lord Watson said: “… the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.” Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the Court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. Therefore, the question whether in the instant case the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition in question even on the facts alleged must depend upon whether the averments made in paragraphs 5, 7, 18, 22, 26 and 43 are sufficient in law to establish that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported i n Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra and others[2], wherein it is held at para No.17 as under: “From the provision in clause (2) of Article 226, it is clear that the maintainability or otherwise of the writ petition in the High Court depends on whether the cause of action for filing the same arose, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court.” 6. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads as follows: “The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.” From a perusal of the above clause, it is made clear that the High Court can exercise the jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 7. In determining the objection of lack of jurisdiction, the Court must take all the facts pleaded in support of cause of action into consideration without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. The expression “cause of action” means that bundle of facts, which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. If, on the averments in the petition, as they are, no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court cannot assume territorial jurisdiction on the ground of residence of writ petitioner. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner occurred while he was working as constable/driver of 4 Battalion Central Reserve Protection Force at Mokamghat, Patna. The Commandant of that armed force passed the order of termination. Appeal is preferred to Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Patna. The revision is filed before C.R.P.F., Bihar Sector, Patna. In this case, the dispute is with regard to dismissal of the petitioner from service. Insofar as that dispute is concerned, no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. The entire disciplinary proceedings and passing of the orders are within the jurisdiction of the state of Bihar. Therefore, as no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, the question of entertaining the appeal does not arise. 8. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file the petition before an appropriate Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 13th April, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.9641 OF 2011 Date:13-04-2011 AMD [1] (1994)4 Supreme Court Cases 711 [2] (2000)7 Supreme Court Cases 640