Safiya Malik

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore Single Bench of Justice Pranay Verma held that the Indore Bench lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed that the matter was not maintainable before this Bench, stating that no cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and dismissed the petition accordingly. The Court, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Bench having jurisdiction in accordance with law.

The matter arose from a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner sought adjudication of a disqualification plea filed under Rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhansabha Sadasya (Dal Parivartan Ke Adhar Par Nirharta) Niyam, 1986. The grievance raised was that the concerned respondent, having been elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from constituency No. 35, Bina, as an approved candidate of the Indian National Congress during the 2023 State Assembly elections, had voluntarily given up her membership of the said party after being elected and joined the Bharatiya Janata Party. According to the petitioner, this act amounted to defection under paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 10 of the Constitution of India, thereby attracting disqualification under Article 191(2) of the Constitution.

Also Read: Supreme Court Clears Arunachal Pradesh PSC Member Mepung Tadar Bage in 2022 Paper Leak Case | No Misconduct Established Under Article 317

The petitioner stated that a disqualification petition had been submitted before the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly seeking such a declaration. However, it was alleged that no decision was taken on the petition, leaving it pending. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Speaker, the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 seeking directions against the respondents.

The respondents raised preliminary objections through interlocutory applications I.A. No.2096/2025 and I.A. No.2393/2025. It was contended that the writ petition was not maintainable before the Indore Bench due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The respondents submitted that the office of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is situated at Bhopal, and respondent No. 4 is a Member from Bina, District Sagar. They asserted that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Indore Bench. The respondents further argued that the mere residence of the petitioner in Dhar District, which falls within the jurisdiction of Indore Bench, could not confer jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents including Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994), Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. (2002), Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2023), Amit Singh Tomar v. Union of India (2024), and Rajendra Singh Bhadoriya v. Union of India (2019).

The petitioner, however, opposed the objection, stating that being a permanent resident of Dhar District and a sitting MLA from Gandhwani constituency No.197, part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Indore Bench as per Article 226(2). In support, reliance was placed on Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2021), Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya (2007), Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994), K.P. Govil v. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (1987), Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2007), Chandrahas v. M.P. Power Transmission Company Ltd. (2022), Tirupati Dhar Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. (2017), All India Steel Re-Rollers Association v. Union of India (2016), and Shrigovind Niranjana Dan v. State of M.P. (2024).

The Court carefully considered the submissions and examined the constitutional provisions. Particular reference was made to Article 226, especially clause (2), which provides jurisdiction to a High Court within whose territory the cause of action arises wholly or in part.

Justice Pranay Verma recorded that the issue for determination was whether the place of residence of a litigating party could be treated as giving rise to part of the cause of action, thereby conferring jurisdiction. The Court referred to earlier precedents including Rajendra Singh Bhadoriya v. Union of India, where it was held that “his settlement would not clothe such Court within whose jurisdiction he is residing any territorial jurisdiction. It is only that the Court, where the cause of action either in whole or in part arises, would have the jurisdiction to hear and decide a lis.”

Quoting from the Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment in Jaswant Singh v. Union of India, the Court noted that “mere posting of the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court taking into account the fact that entire action taken against the petitioner which is subject-matter of challenge of this petition has been taken place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court would not confer any territorial jurisdiction on this Court to entertain the writ petition.”

The Court then stated: “The cause of action would mean those disputed issues which are required to be decided while adjudicating the claim of the litigating parties. When the place of residence of a litigating party has no relevance with the subject-matter of the lis, then the same cannot be said to be an integral part of cause of action.”

It was further observed: “The place of sitting of respondent No.2 is at Bhopal and he is required to pass the order at Bhopal. Respondent No.4 has been elected from Bina constituency in District Sagar which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. The integral part of cause of action has hence undoubtedly arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this bench and merely for the reason that the petitioner is resident within the territorial jurisdiction of this bench, it cannot be said that the same has any relevance with the subject matter of the lis or is an integral part of the same.”

Also Read: Allahabad High Court | ‘Jethani’ Not Part of ‘Family’ Unless Brothers Share Common House & Kitchen | Cancels Bar on Anganbari Appointment and Orders Reinstatement

On the issue of forum conveniens, the Court observed: “Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this bench on account of residence of the petitioner, then also the same is not a determinative factor compelling this Bench to decide the matter on merits. In my opinion, it is a fit case to refuse exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience.”

The Court also noted that the judgments cited by the petitioner did not address the territorial jurisdiction issue raised by the respondents and therefore could not assist the petitioner.

The Court concluded its decision by holding: “Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that this Bench has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition which is therefore liable to be and is hereby dismissed for that reason. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the competent Bench having territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Shri Prashant Singh, Advocate General along with Shri Shreyraj Saxena, Deputy Advocate General; Shri Manish Nair, Advocate

Case Title: Umang Singhar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-IND:24519

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 38050 of 2024

Bench: Justice Pranay Verma