Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Single Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, dismissed a writ petition filed by a dismissed CRPF constable challenging his removal from service, holding that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The court found that since the alleged misconduct, the departmental enquiry, the dismissal order, and the subsequent rejection of the statutory appeal and revision all took place at locations entirely outside its territorial limits, no material or integral part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction. The court clarified that territorial jurisdiction is grounded in the essential facts of a dispute and cannot be determined by a litigant's place of residence or the receipt of official communications at a chosen address, as allowing such an interpretation would facilitate forum shopping and compromise the orderly administration of justice.

The petitioner, a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), approached the High Court seeking quashing of disciplinary orders that removed him from service. According to the record, the petitioner was appointed as Constable (GD) in CRPF on 22 June 1996 and was later posted in different battalions, including at Jalandhar and Delhi.

Also Read: Auction Sale Under Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Framework Void Ab Initio On Failure To Deposit Full Purchase Price Within Prescribed Period: Supreme Court

While on duty, allegations were made that the petitioner, along with another constable, was involved in misconduct, disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, and remissness under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. The charges arose from an incident during the night of 20 December 2005 when the petitioner and the other constable allegedly engaged in a fight with a superior officer, resulting in injuries to the officer. A detailed charge sheet was issued on 20 January 2006 and departmental proceedings were initiated.

The petitioner challenged the disciplinary action, contending that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules and that he was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or access enquiry records. He also contended that the respondents improperly conducted a joint enquiry against two officials instead of examining allegations against each individual separately.

The respondents denied these allegations and maintained that a proper departmental enquiry had been conducted. They further raised a preliminary objection that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction since the disciplinary proceedings, dismissal order, appellate order, and revisional order had all been passed outside the territorial limits of the Court.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recorded that the mere service of an order at a petitioner's residential address cannot confer territorial jurisdiction upon a court. The court observed that "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."

Referencing Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254, the court observed that "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."

On the question of what constitutes a valid cause of action, the court stated that "the mere service of an order at a particular location does not by itself give rise to a territorial cause of action at that site. To hold otherwise would allow the petitioner to unilaterally dictate jurisdiction simply by relocating to a forum of their choice." The court further stated that "territorial jurisdiction is a matter of law rooted in the essential facts of the dispute, it is not a mobile privilege dependent upon the convenience or residence of the petitioner."

The court also noted that "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" and that only those facts which have a direct nexus with the dispute constitute cause of action, while facts which are merely incidental or ancillary cannot confer territorial jurisdiction.

Addressing the nature of cause of action further, the court stated that "it is well established that the expression cause of action denotes every fact which the petitioner would be required to establish, if controverted, in order to substantiate his entitlement to relief from the court. It must include some act done by the respondents, since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise."

The court observed that "none of the acts under challenge in this writ petition have been done by the respondents in Jammu and Kashmir. The plea of receipt of the copies of orders pertaining to dismissal, rejection of appeal and revision does not give jurisdiction to a court to entertain the writ petition."

On the consequence of a court proceeding without territorial jurisdiction, the court stated that "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."

The Court recorded: “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. As this court does not possess the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition, it cannot proceed to adjudicate upon the merits of the case.”

The Court further stated: “This court, therefore, is of the considered view that since the entire enquiry proceedings, from issuance of the charge sheet to the final dismissal of the petitioner, occurred outside the territorial limits of this court, no cause of action has accrued in favour of the petitioner within the jurisdiction of this High Court. Thus, this court finds no reason or justification to entertain the instant writ petition and accordingly, is of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Court.”

Also Read: Preventive Detention Invoked With Less Seriousness Than A Traffic Challan, District Magistrate Acted On Police Dictation Without Independent Mind: J&K And Ladakh High Court

“Since the Court is of the view that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the issue in question, this court is not dwelling upon the merits of the case and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.”

“However, the 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.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mrs. Surinder Kour, Senior Advocate with Mr. Michael Singh Dogra, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate vice Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI

Case Title: Noshad Ahmed v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: SWP No. 1245/2007
Bench: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal