SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Singh, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) LEARNED Additional Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection on the question of maintainability of this writ petition in this Court. According to him,this writ petition suffers for want of territorial jurisdiction as the impugned order of dismissal was passed at a place which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. At the time of passing of the said order, the posting of the petitioner was outside the jurisdiction of this Court and the respondents also reside outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) MR . Singh, learned Additional Standing Counsel, in reply, has referred |p the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nand Kishore Singh vs. Union of India, reported in 1983 PLJR 54. In paragraph 11 of the said decision the Division Bench did not accept the contention that the act of merely filing an appeal against an adverse order, which has been already carried out, should be deemed to be a part of the cause of action for choosing the forum for filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it was held that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner and his removal from the service was passed at Nayal Nangal i.e. beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.