KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has produced before this Court the original of the dismissal order and the same has been shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admits that the said original dismissal order was passed in Bhopal and was served upon the petitioner at Bhopal.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute as it has been recorded already, that in this case the order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, namely by respondent no. 5, the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, BHEL, Bhopal (M.P.), who is an authority in Bhopal. It is also not in dispute, as it appears from the original order that the said order was served upon the petitioner in Bhopal. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had filed appeal and revision against the said order of dismissal and the orders passed in those appeal and revision have been served upon the petitioner at village Maner within the district of Patna. In the present factual context, the question which arises is whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner by referring to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India submits that if a part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court, then in that case his writ petition before this Court is maintainable and he has contended that it is not required that the entire cause of action must arise within the jurisdiction of this Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the appellate order and the revisional order which according to him are parts of his cause of action, have been served on the petitioner at Maner which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court should entertain this writ petition.