Sing J dismissed WPA No. 2004 of 2020 held that the High Court at Calcutta lacks jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition as no integral part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits regarding the transfer of the petitioner from the Central Reserve Police Force.
Unchecked.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
17.12.2020 Ct. No. 24 Item No. 16 pk.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
WPA No. 2004 of 2020
Goutam Mandal
-vs-
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Achin Majumder, Mr. Pratik Majumder for the petitioner Mrs. Chandreyi Alam, Ms. Sanjukta Bhattacharya for the UOI
The petitioner is a member of the Central Reserve Police Force. He is aggrieved by an order of transfer, which was passed in his favour transferring him from 66 Battalion, Kewakol, Gwaltore, Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal to Jharkhand, Ranchi.
The petitioner made a representation before respondent no. 5, the Commandant of the 66 Battalion and also before the Inspector General of Police, West Bengal Sector, Kolkata.
The petitioner submits that his representation have not been considered by the authorities till date.
By a movement order dated 20th January, 2020 arising out of premature inter-zonal transfer the petitioner was further transferred to Madhya Pradesh. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner in February 2020.
2
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that as the petitioner has been transferred from Jharkhand to Madhya Pradesh, the High Court at Calcutta does not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue and the competent authority to decide the same will be the office at Delhi.
The learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon the judgement delivered by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in the matter of Bharat Coaking Coal Ltd, -vsJharia Talkies & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1992(II) CHN page 80, paras 46, 47 and 49. The Hon’ble court in the said matter was of the opinion that regarding the provision of Clause 1 of Article 226 of the Constitution, the court had the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition since the respondent no. 3 has his offices within the jurisdiction of this court although no part of the cause of action arises within the State of West Bengal.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court on repeated occasions have held that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked unless integral part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the said court.
In the instant writ petition it appears that the cause of action arose at Jharkhand and thereafter in Madhya Pradesh where the petitioner has been presently transferred.
3
In my opinion, the High Court at Calcutta does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the issue at this stage. The writ petition stands dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court at Calcutta has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition arising from inter-zonal transfer of a Central Reserve Police Force offi
Whether an integral part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bharat Coaking Coal Ltd. vs Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.Referred¶14
1992(II) CHN page 80, para 46, 47 and 49
Goutam Mandal
Union of India & Ors.
Amrita Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
