GIAN CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ against the respondents who do not reside or have office within the territorial jurisdiction of this court not have they passed any order within the State adversely affecting the rights of the peitioner. Mr. Malik the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as the order of the respondents passed in appeal filed by the petitioner was conveyed to be within the jurisdiction of this court therefore this court has the jurisdiction to entertain the peition and grant the appropriate relief

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel in detail & perused the relevant provisions of the constitution applicable.

(3.) ART . 226 of the constitution of India was amended & substituted by a New Article by the 42nd amendment Act 1976. Again in the year 1978 this Article was substituted vide 44th amendment Act with the result that the original Article 226 was restored with some modifications. In view of the 42nd amendment, the jurisdiction of the High Court could have been invoked for the enforcement of the fundamental rights or to redress any injury of substantial nature caused by contravention of statutory provisons and to redress an injury by reason of illegality in any proceedings resulting in substantial failure of justice. A comparative study of the original Article and as substituted vide 42nd amendment clearly showed that the scope of writ jurisdiction was much reduced. However, 44th amendment specifically omitted all the amendments which had reduced the jurisdiction of the High Court Art. 226 of the constitution prescribed a two -fold limitation on the jurisdiction of this court in its territorial aspect, i. e. the power could be exercised through out the territories in addition relation to which the High Court exercised the jurisdiction & to the personal authority to whom the writs are issued be within the territories subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court (AIR 1954 SC 207) However after 15th amendment Act, 1963, the High Courts were conferred the powers to exercise jurisdiction against the authorities irrespective of the residence or location of offices, if any part of the cause of action ha accrued to the peitition within the territorial jurisdiction of the court where the petition is filed. It follows therefore that even if the seat of the authority or person concerned is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution can be exercised in respect of such matter if whole or any part of the cause of action had arisen within such territory. Amendment to Art. 226 by the 15th amendment was only procedural and therefore retrospective. It is now well settled that where a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of a particular court, that court has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition and grant the relief. If the petitioner succeeds in showing that the impugned order affected him or was passed or the authority passing the order resides or is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court, the High Court would have the jurisdiction to grant the relief. In a case where none of these conditions are shown to be existing the High Court would refuse to entertain the petition for grant of relief under Article 226 of the constitution of India.