Partly allowed

Pankaj Singh Bajad v. the Commandant C.I.S.F. Unit Bccl, Dhanbad, Jharkhand & Ors.

Delhi HC20 Jul 2016W.P.(C)/6205/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition regarding a negligence indictment. The High Court observed a disconnect between arguments and pleadings and ruled it lacked territorial jurisdiction as the inquiry and orders were in Jharkhand.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed but petitioner directed to withdraw and file before a court with territorial jurisdiction in Jharkhand or Patna.

Pankaj Singh Bajad Vs the Commandant C.I.S.F… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6205/2016

¶4

PANKAJ SINGH BAJAD ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Parmil Kumar, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE COMMANDANT C.I.S.F. UNIT BCCL, DHANBAD, JHARKHAND & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Vikram Jetly, Advocate with Mr.Jasvinder Singh, Constable/CISF.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

¶9

O R D E R % 20.07.2016

¶10

CM No.25411/2016

¶11

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) 6205/2016 & CM No.25410/2016

¶13

As learned counsel for the petitioner proceeded to argue the writ petition a complete disconnect between what learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue and what has been pleaded emerges.

¶14

The indictment is for negligence. The petitioner concedes that during the period when he alongwith a few others were on guard at the building in question in Dhanbad, lock of the main gate was found broken. Within the precincts of the building five locks were broken.

¶15

The petitioner has also not lay a challenge to the revisional order W.P.(C) 6205/2016 Page 1 of 2

¶16

which was passed by the authority in Patna.

¶17

The indictment took place in Jharkhand. The inquiry was held in Jharkhand. The order levying penalty as well the appellate order were passed by the authorities at Jharkhand. Revisional order is by the authority in Patna. This Court would not have territorial jurisdiction.

¶18

Accordingly learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition with right reserved to file a fresh petition either before the Patna High Court or the Jharkhand High Court, which two Courts would have territorial jurisdiction.

¶19

Needless to state, since the instant writ petition is being rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction the petitioner would be entitled to avail remedy before the Court having territorial jurisdiction. The petition is rejected.

¶20

No costs.

¶21

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

¶22

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

¶23

JULY 20, 2016 ‘st’

¶24

W.P.(C) 6205/2016

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Pankaj Singh Bajad v. the Commandant C.I.S.F. Unit Bccl, Dhanbad, Jharkhand & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Singh Bajad v. the Commandant C.I.S.F. Unit Bccl, Dhanbad, Jharkhand & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, & Anr. Vs Shiva Nandan Prasad & Anr.

Rohit Jain & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

A.K.Baweja Vs Delhi Stock Exchange Assoc.Ltd

Sombir and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Kusum Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Rohani Satsang Prem Samaj (Regd) Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Indistock Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Liquidator, Pertrofils Co-Operative Ltd. and Ors.

Kukkikatte Krishnamoorty Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dheeraj Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ex Flight Cadet Mohit Bhandari Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vineet Kumar & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Raghavendra Prasad Kuruva, Cisf Vs Union of India

Arcil Vs the Registrar Drt-I, Delhi & Ors.

Gulf Medical Centre Vs Punjab & Sind Bank and Anr.