KHIALI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

(2.) When the case was taken up for hearing, two preliminary objections were taken with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on behalf of the respondents. According to the respondents, this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present petition on merits as no cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The second objection taken by the respondents is that there is an alternative remedy available with the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 9(3) of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 and the petitioner has filed the present writ petition without availing the alternative remedy available to him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present petition is maintainable before this Court as some part of cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. According to him, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the respondents/competent authority which was addressed from Sarkaghat where he resides, i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the factum of rejection of his appeal has been communicated by the respondents to him at Sarkaghat. This is apparent from the perusal of Annexure P-6 which is copy of appeal filed by the petitioner dated 09.07.2008 and the order passed by the appellate authority on the said appeal dated 08.10.2008 (Annexure P-7). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there was no efficacious and alternative remedy available to the petitioner against the order passed by the disciplinary authority and accordingly, he had rightly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.