VINOD KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cause of action determines the Court of competent jurisdiction when a party invokes extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In discern contradistinction to the provisions of Section 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 226 (2) restricts the principle of territorial jurisdiction only to 'cause of action'. The expression would take in its ambit partial or entire cause of action. Part of cause of action is again a term of wide magnitude and thus, has to be construed liberally. However, once the element of cause of action or any part thereof in its minutest form is absent, the court may not have territorial jurisdiction, only on the basis of the residence/ location of the party. The provisions of Section 20 of the Code states that subject to the limitation contained in the preceding Sections, a suit could be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the defendant or each of the defendants voluntarily resides or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Thus, there are two factors which independent of each other, can grant jurisdiction for a party to institute a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction. However, these provisions would not be applicable to writ jurisdiction stricto senso. It is a settled principle of law that provisions of the Civil Procedure Code would not apply in full vigour or strictly to the writ proceedings. They are not applicable of their own force to such proceedings but nonetheless the writ proceedings could be governed by principles analogous to those contained in the Code particularly when they are not inconsistent with the writ rules of this court or the constitutional mandate contained in Article 226. Unlike the provisions of Section 20 of the Code which specifies different grounds for vesting jurisdiction in the court, Article 226 contemplates location of the authorities and arising of cause of action partly or wholly within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. By introduction of Article 226(2), great emphasis has been laid on the concept of cause of action. Even this statement is further clarified by use of non-obstante clause that it would be so notwithstanding the fact that seat of such Government or authority or residence of such person is not within those territories. This manifestly shows that residence of the party is not really a relevant consideration for determining jurisdiction of a court under these provisions. In view of this constitutional mandate, the provisions of the High Court Rules and Orders relating to exercise of writ jurisdiction have to be read ejusdem generis to the constitutional provisions.

(2.) To appropriately discuss the rationale between the principle of cause of action giving jurisdiction to a court, it will be useful to refer to the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution, which reads as under:-

(3.) These provisions clearly exhibit the intent of the framers of the Constitution to grant territorial jurisdiction to the court in whose jurisdiction the entire or part of cause of action has arisen. The purpose of restricting jurisdiction of the court and relating it directly to the cause of action, has also nexus to the expeditious disposal of the writ petition. An aggrieved person should approach the court of competent jurisdiction and not file writ petitions in the court in whose jurisdiction no cause of action or part thereof has arisen merely on the ground that the respondents or the petitioners were residents of an area falling under jurisdiction of that court. Article 226 (3)of the Constitution while furthering the cause of expeditious disposal and prevention of unnecessary prolongation of interim orders in the form of injunction or stay, makes it obligatory for the courts to dispose of such applications within the specified time or within such time as the courts may consider proper for reasons to be stated. Expeditious disposal has relevancy to the administration of justice and, therefore, is essential to the issue of jurisdiction also. Normally wherever cause of action or part thereof arises, the authorities would be in power and possession of the relevant documents which can without any delay be produced before the courts to help expeditious disposal. These are procedural provisions but are mandatory in their form as they alone determine the court of competent jurisdiction. Vesting jurisdiction in a court in whose jurisdiction neither any cause of action or part thereof has arisen, would amount to defeating the very purpose of the constitutional provisions. In a vast country like ours, the division of jurisdiction would be necessary which in turn would link itself to the rationale behind these constitutional provisions.