MUKUL GUPTA Vs. MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the writ petitioner and has suffered a setback when vide impugned order dated January 27, 2015, the learned Single Judge has dismissed WP(C) No.7944/2014 filed by the appellant holding that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition because no part of cause of action accrued at Delhi. That the registered office of the first respondent was at Delhi has been held to be no ground to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court. The learned Single Judge has noted that the appellant was an employee of the first respondent at its institute in Gurgaon and the letter dated October 28, 2014 terminating the service of the appellant was dispatched from the institute of the first respondent in Gurgaon and received by the appellant at his residence in Gurgaon. That the decision to terminate the services of the petitioner was taken by the Board at Delhi has been held to be not constituting a part of the cause of action.

(2.) The case of the appellant was that the first respondent, though a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was a State within the meaning ascribed to the term in Article 12 of the Constitution of India having its registered office at IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The first respondent had established a management institute (respondent No.2) in Gurgaon in Sukhrali. The appellant was offered appointment to the post of Professor at the said institute on March 01, 2000 which was accepted by the appellant and as a consequence the appellant joined the institute in May, 2000. Highlighting his achievements while working with the institute it was pleaded that the Chairman of the Board of Governors, impleaded as respondent No.3 and the Registrar of the Institute, impleaded as respondent No.4, started influencing the appellant regarding enrolment of the students. It was pleaded that since the appellant did not succumb to the illegal pressures, under a stratagem, without affording any opportunity of hearing, a mala fide decision was taken at a Board meeting held at the registered office of the first respondent at Delhi on October 16, 2014 to terminate the service of the appellant.

(3.) Noting that the decision on the file reflecting the Board meeting held on October 16, 2014 was authored at Delhi, the learned Single Judge has held that the same would not confer jurisdiction on the court at Delhi.