// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2867/1997 Surendra Singh Son of Shri Birju Singh (Since deceased) through legal heirs Smt. Saroj Devi and Others Vs. Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, C.H.O. Complex, FISF, Head Quarter, Lodhi Road, New Delhi & Others Date of Judgment ::: 10.03.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rinesh Gupta for Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, Counsel for petitioner Shri Ajay Shukla, Counsel for respondents BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order dated 17.11.1993 by which he was awarded punishment of removal from service and subsequent order dated 28.05.1994 whereby appeal filed by him against such order of removal, was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Central Industrial Security Forces. The order of removal has been passed on 17.11.1993 by the Commandant, Office of the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, // 2 // RSP, Rourkela (Orissa). The order of rejecting appeal has been passed on 28.05.1994 by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Forces, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela (Orissa). It was in this context that the respondents raised an objection that the writ petition before this court, would not be maintainable since no part of cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. Shri Rinesh Gupta, brief holder of Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner, has placed reliance in Alchemist Ltd. and Another Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Others (2007) 11 SCC 335, Addl. General Manager – Human Resource, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde (2007) 5 SCC 336, Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association Vs. Union of India and Others (2001) 2 SCC 294 and Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2000 SC 2966). He further relied on Division Bench judgment of this court in Prem Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Collector (Principal Appraiser) Customs Bombay & Anr (1978 WLN 481). He also relied on the judgment of a // 3 // Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mahender Pratap Singh Kapil Vs. Union of India & Others – 1999 (1) WLC (Raj.) 375. On the basis of afore-cited judgments, especially the judgment of Division Bench of this court in Prem Cables' case (supra), learned counsel has argued that petitioner received the order rejecting his appeal at Village Dhundhariya, Post Office Peepli, District Alwar (Rajasthan), where he is residing, therefore, in view of the cited judgments, the part of cause of action should be taken to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The writ petition should be, therefore, entertained and decided on merits. Shri Ajay Shukla, learned counsel for respondents, however, insisted that no part of cause of action has arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this court and, in support thereof, placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Mahesh Chandra Singhania Vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4652/1992 which was dismissed by this court on 29.6.2009. The learned counsel // 4 // relied upon various other judgments which are referred to in the judgment of this court in Mahesh Chandra Singhania's case (supra). He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another (AIR 2004 SC 2321) and argued that merely because place of residence, the petitioner cannot insist that part of cause of action had arisen where he received communication. In Mahesh Chandra Singhania's case (supra), termination order was issued at Baruch in State of Gujarat and dispatched to the petitioner at Jaipur address. Argument of petitioner was that since order of termination was received by him at Jaipur, this court would have the territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Another argument raised was that since the writ petition was admitted long back, it cannot be dismissed at the stage of final hearing on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The judgments in Alchemist's case (supra) and Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association's case (supra), relied upon by // 5 // learned counsel for petitioner, and Kusum Ingots' case (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for respondents, were also cited in Mahesh Chandra Singhania's case. Apart from this, there were other Supreme Court judgments which were also considered. Finally, the court held that if this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India did not wield territorial jurisdiction over the dispute involved in the petition when it was originally filed, it cannot derive such jurisdiction by mere reason of its prolonged pendency or because the petition was admitted long back or even with the consent of the parties. It was held on the strength of number of judgments that mere receipt of the termination order cannot be accepted as part of cause of action, giving rise to part of cause of action because mere receipt of such communication is not an essential, integral or material fact so as to constitute a part of cause of action. This view was also propounded by the Supreme Court in Alchemist's case (supra), the judgment which is relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner. Despite contrary view expressed // 6 // by Division Bench in Prem Cables' case (supra), number of judgments of the Supreme Court being having held otherwise, that judgment should be taken to have been impliedly overruled. In view of the above discussions, no part of cause of action can be taken to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed on that count alone. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//