NARINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Petition a challenge has been laid to the Nomination of Respondent No.5 as a member of the Meerut Cantonment Board. The Petitioner as well as Respondent No.5 are residents of Meerut. It has been prayed that Respondents 1-4 be directed to remove Respondent No.5 as the Civilian Member of the said Meerut Cantonment Board. Respondent No.3 is the General Officer Commanding in Chief [G.O.C.-In-C), Central Command, Lucknow Cantt; Respondent No.4 is the Principal Director, Defence Estate, Lucknow Cantt. Only Respondent No.1, Union of India and Respondent No.2, Director General, Defence Estate, are located in New Delhi. It has further been prayed that the Gazette Notification dated 28.9.2005, to the extent it pertains to Meerut, be quashed. The third prayer is for the issuance of a direction to nominate and install the Petitioner in the Cantonment Board, Meerut as the Civilian Member upto 30.6.2006.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that this Court ought not to exercise jurisdiction in the matter, and that the Petitioner should be given liberty to approach the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad or any other Court holding territorial sway over the dispute.

(3.) The subject of when and which Court should exercise jurisdiction has received considerable attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Patel Roadways Limited Bombay vs. M/s. Prasad Trading Company, AIR 1992 SC 1514, in the context of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court observed as follows: It would be a great hardship if, in spite of the Corporation having a subordinate office at the place where the cause of action arises (with which in all probability the plaintiff has had dealings), such plaintiff is to be compelled to travel to the place where the Corporation has its principal place. That place should be convenient to the plaintiff; and since the Corporation has an office at such place, it will also be under no disadvantage?. This reasoning applies even to writ petitions. If the 'Corporation at its principal office' is substituted by the Union of India, and the 'place where the Corporation has a subordinate office where the cause of action has arisen' is replaced by Respondents No.3 and 4, the Judgment compels this Court not to exercise jurisdiction.