MANGAL MAJHI Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate, took the point of territorial jurisdiction. The records show that this point was taken at the time of admission of the writ application in 2011 and was kept open to be taken at the time of hearing. Mr. Mondal was absolutely right, to the extent he argued that a most substantial part of the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The father of the writ petitioner worked in Basantimata Colliery, Dhanbad, outside the jurisdiction. So did his mother. The death certificate of the mother, Smt. Makhani Mejhain, the mother of the writ petitioner, in whose place he seeks compassionate appointment died in a village in Dhanbad. The rejection of the writ petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was also made on 20th October, 2010 by the agent, Basantimata Colliery, Mugma, Dhanbad. The above facts constitute a most substantial part of the cause of action. Thus a substantial part of the cause of action arose in Dhanbad.

(2.) But the part of the cause of action which is within the jurisdiction of this Court, in my opinion, is that according to paragraph 19 of the writ petition the records of the case are situated in the office of the General Manager of the area at Chanch Victoria at Barakar, District Burdwan, West Bengal and that the appointing authority, i.e. the agent who rejected the writ petitioner's application for compassionate appointment, works under the said General Manager of the area at Barakar, West Bengal. This pleading regarding jurisdiction was dealt in paragraph 10 of the affidavit in opposition. A part of paragraph 10 of the affidavit in opposition is inserted below:-

(3.) The above pleading is not specific about location of the records or whether the appointing authority is under the control of the said General Manager. It could well be argued that some records and not the entire records of the case are in Barakar, West Bengal. It could also be argued that the appointing authority was under the General manager in some respects but not in the manner alleged by the petitioner. More details about the powers of the General manger, the appointing authority and the location of the records ought to have been forthcoming.