NARENDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner has sought the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order No. Estt/SSFC- 51Bn/90Bn/09/1064999 dated 05.06.2009 issued by respondent No.3 and order dated 19th July, 2010 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner has questioned order dated 05.06.2009 issued by Commandant, 90 Battalion BSF by which punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him, inter alia, on the ground that respondent No.3, while passing the order of dismissal from service, has not followed the provisions of Rule 45 of Border Security Force Rules of 1969. The order dated 19th July, 2010 passed by respondent No.2 in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner upholding the order dated 05.06.2009 has also been questioned on the ground that the appellate authority i.e respondent No.2 herein while rejecting his statutory appeal filed under Section 117(2) of BSF Act did not grant any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which was necessary in this case and, therefore, the order passed by respondent No.2 in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner is illegal being violative of principles of natural justice.

(2.) Mr. Rohan Nanda learned CGSC representing the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition. It is claimed that since no cause of action or part thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, as such, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. He submits that the orders impugned have been passed by the authorities located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that merely because the order passed by respondent No.2 in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was communicated to him within the territorial jurisdiction of UT of Jammu and Kashmir does not mean that a part of action has accrued in the Union Territory of J&K which is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition, I am of the considered view that the objection raised by the learned CGSC has merit and must sustain.