BISHAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 701 of 2004. The primary prayer made by the appellant in the aforesaid Writ Petition was for the issuance of a direction in the nature of a writ of Mandamus requiring respondent nos. 3 and 4 to allow the appellant to join his duty. When the aforesaid Writ Petition came up for hearing on 30.3.2010, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order, disposing of the said petition: "Heard Sri B.S. Adhikari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anjali Bhargawa, the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was working as Hawaldar in 17 th Battalion of Indo-Tibetan Border Police and at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted in somewhere else in Leh (Laddakh). The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the respondent nos. 1 to 4 praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duty. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duty. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents indicating that the service of the petitioner was terminated by an order dated 29th December, 203 w.e.f. 21.08.200. This order of the petitioner has not been challenged. Consequently, the petitioner's claim that he should be allowed to join cannot be granted. This Court further finds that all the four respondents are outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The order of termination of the petitioner was passed by the competent authority in Leh. This Court, consequently, finds that the writ petition was not maintainable in the State of Uttarakhand because this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter. The writ petition fails and is dismissed."

(2.) Insofar as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, it is apparent that the appellant has never been posted in the State of Uttarakhand. It is also conceded, that no order, impugned or otherwise, was passed against the appellant within the territorial jurisdiction of Uttarakhand. It is also conceded, that none of the respondents are located within the State of Uttarakhand. It is, therefore, clear that no part of cause of action has accrued to the appellant within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Uttarakhand. As such, we are satisfied that the determination rendered by the learned Single Judge to the effect that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant was fully justified.

(3.) The only other determination rendered by the learned Single Judge was to the effect, that the services of the appellant had been terminated by an order dated 29.12.2003. It was, therefore, sought to be concluded that till the appellant impugned the order dated 29.12.2003, it was not open to the appellant to make a prayer that he should be reinstated in service. We are satisfied that the aforesaid determination rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court was fully justified. In the absence of the challenge to the order dated 29.12.2003, no order in the nature of writ of mandamus could have been passed in favour of the appellant requiring the respondents to reinstate him in service.