Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Feb 28: Reiterating that territorial jurisdiction cannot depend upon the convenience or residence of a litigant, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by a dismissed CRPF constable, observing that permitting petitions based merely on receipt of orders at a chosen place would encourage ‘forum shopping and undermine the orderly administration of justice.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, who held that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as no material, essential or integral part of the cause of action had arisen within Jammu and Kashmir.
The petitioner, Noshad Ahmed of Mendhar, a former Constable (GD) of the Central Reserve Police Force, had sought quashing of orders dated August 29, 2006, November 14, 2006 and May 16, 2007, whereby he was removed from service and his appeal and revision were dismissed. He also prayed for reinstatement with consequential service benefits and for treating the period from removal as “on duty”.
The disciplinary action arose out of allegations of misconduct, disobedience of orders and neglect of duty relating to an incident that occurred during the intervening night of December 20, 2005.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules and that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of being heard and to cross-examine witnesses.
The respondents, however, contended that a preliminary enquiry was conducted, charges were framed and a full-fledged departmental enquiry was held strictly in conformity with the CRPF Act and Rules. They further raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
After hearing both the sides, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “the alleged misconduct occurred in New Delhi; the order of dismissal was issued in New Delhi; the statutory appeal was rejected at Jalandhar and the revision petition was dismissed at Chandigarh”. However, the petitioner argued that jurisdiction arose because the impugned orders were served at his residential address within Jammu and Kashmir.
“Since, the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority are all situated outside the territorial limits of this court, no substantial part of cause of action can be said to have accrued within the jurisdiction of this court”, Justice Nargal said, adding “the mere fact that the petitioner is a resident of district Poonch or the order of dismissal and order of rejection of appeal and revision was served to him at his residential address, does not entitle the petitioner to file his writ petition before this High Court”.
Referring several judgments of the Supreme Court, Justice Nargal said, “even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of a High Court, the same must have a real and substantial nexus with the dispute involved”, adding the expression “cause of action” cannot be interpreted liberally so as to permit litigants to choose a forum of convenience.
“Territorial jurisdiction cannot be allowed to depend upon the unilateral act of a party, such as shifting residence or receiving communication at a chosen location. To permit such interpretation would encourage forum shopping and undermine the orderly administration of justice”, the High Court said, adding “when a court lacking territorial jurisdiction proceeds to entertain a writ petition, such defect goes to the very root of the matter and constitutes an inherent infirmity which is not curable”.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition as the same was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction of the court. However, the High Court clarified that dismissal will not come in the way of the petitioner to file petition before the court of appropriate territorial jurisdiction and in that eventuality, the period which has been spent over here by choosing the wrong forum shall not come in the way of the petitioner to agitate the cause afresh.
