ANAND ANOOP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 20823 of 2013 is the appellant before us. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows;

(2.) The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge on the issue of maintainability. The relevant portion of the judgment of the learned single Judge reads as follows:

(3.) We have heard Adv. Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Adv. Sri. P. Sanjay, Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents. Counsel for the appellant would contend that in so far as the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition was for a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to finalise the select list of nominees to the central pool seats in the 3rd respondent institute, the Kerala High Court would have territorial jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining a Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. He would, in particular, refer to the provisions of Art. 226(2) of the Constitution to contend that insofar as the direction sought for in the Writ Petition was to the 1st and 2nd respondents, who represent the Central Government, the Writ Petition could be maintained before the High Court in Kerala which had jurisdiction over Tellicherry, the place of his residence in Kerala. He would point out that insofar as his application before the 1st and 2nd respondents had been preferred from Kerala and he was a resident of Kerala, the non-communication of any decision on his application, or the communication of any adverse decision on his application, would affect his rights in Kerala and hence, a part of his cause of action against the respondents arose in Kerala for the purposes of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. He would further point out, that at any rate, insofar as the 3rd respondent institute had no role to play in a decision to be taken on his application for nomination for the central pool seats, the High Court having jurisdiction over the 3rd respondent could not be the court having jurisdiction to entertain a Writ Petition under Art. 226.