BHOGESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant and the respondent-Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. By the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2017 passed in WP(S) No.2206 of 2012 the writ petition has been dismissed as not maintainable on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials on record including the letter dated 26.03.2012 (annexure-3) issued by the Deputy General Manager, (H.R.), A.R.D.C., Design Complex Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. at Marathalli, P.O. and P.S.-Banglore, District - Banglore- 560037(Karnataka) addressed to the petitioner/appellant at his native place i.e. village- Mohalbani Nagina Bazar, P.O- Bhowra, P.S.- Sudamdih, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 828202 on the subject of cancellation of provisional offer of appointment for the post of Engineer(Design). That the order of cancellation of provisional offer of appointment of the petitioner was communicated to him at his native place within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand is not in dispute. What is urged on behalf of the respondent H.A.L. is that mere service of such order of rejection will not clothe this Court with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as neither cause of action nor any part of cause of action has arisen in the State of Jharkhand. In this regard learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the two judgments (1994) 4 SCC 711 ( Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors .) and (2002) 1 SCC 567 (Union of India and Ors. Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and Another).

(3.) Similar issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 329. In that case the letter of rejection of disability pension was received at native place of the petitioner where he was staying due to said disability. The Apex Court held that cause of action partly arose at the native place of the petitioner. Therefore, High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the petitioner received this letter has jurisdiction to entertain writ petition. Article 226(2) has been referred to in conjunction with Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Paras-9 to 17 of the report where the decision in the case of Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. (Supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. and Another(Supra) has also been discussed, are profitably quoted hereunder: