Dismissed

Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC10 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/230/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens to determine that the High Court of Delhi was not the appropriate forum to adjudicate a petition challenging a CISF employment dismissal order issued by an officer in Tamil Nadu, where the cause of action arose in Tamil Nadu despite respondent offices being in Delhi.

What did the court decide?

Petition and pending applications dismissed with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

Amit Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 10.01.2025

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 230/2025 & CM APPL. 1131/2025, CM APPL. 1132/2025 AMIT KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Sahil Mongia, Ms.Sanjana Samor, Mr.Yash Yadav, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sahil Munjal, SPC with Ms.Rhea Gandhi, Advs. with Mr.Siatul, CISF with Mr.Prahlad Kaushik, SI, CISF with Mr.S.N.Chaudhary, DC, CISF. Ms.Shagun Shahi, Ms.Meera Chugh, Advs.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶8

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the impugned letter dated 23.12.2024 issued by the respondent no.3, informing the petitioner that the petitioner has been declared “unsuitable for employment in the CISF”.

¶10

The Impugned Order dated 23.12.2024 has been issued by the

¶11

Signature Not Verified

¶12

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 230/2025 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 4.01.2025 20:07:52

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

Commandant, CISF. RTC Arakkonam, District Ranipet, State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner himself is a resident of the State of Bihar. We, therefore, enquired from the petitioner as to why this petition has been filed before this Court. He submits that the petition has been filed before this Court as the office of the Director General, CISF and the Ministry of Home Affair is situated at Delhi.

¶15

Apart from the fact that the Impugned Order dismissing the petitioner from service has not been issued at Delhi, it is trite law that “cause of action” means a bundle of facts which is necessary for the petitioner to prove in order to succeed in the proceedings. It does not completely depend upon a character of the relief prayed for by the petitioner. A small part of the cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court may not be considered as a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on its own merits. In such a case, the doctrine of forum non conveniens shall apply.

¶16

As noted herein above, in the present case, the Impugned Order has been passed by the Commandant, CISF. RTC Arakkonam, District Ranipet, State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the cause of action has arisen at Tamil Nadu. Merely because the office of the Director General, CISF and the Ministry of Home Affair is situated at Delhi, it will not make this Court a forum conveniens .

¶17

Applying the principle of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, therefore, we are of the opinion that this Court would not be the

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 230/2025 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 4.01.2025 20:07:52

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

appropriate/convenient Forum to adjudicate on the grievance raised by the petitioner.

¶22

Accordingly, we decline to entertain the present petition in exercise of the discretion vested in as under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

The petition and the pending applications are dismissed, while reserving the liberty of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

¶24

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶25

RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶26

JANUARY 10, 2025 RN/DG

¶27

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 230/2025 By:SUNIL Signing Da te:1 4.01.2025 20:07:52

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govt of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary & Anr. Vs Sachin Kumar

Delhi Apartments Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chairman, Special Task Force

Abha Gupta Vs Commercial Senior Secondary School & Ors.

Sar Engineers Vs Assistant Pf Commissioner

Gala International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Sudesh Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, DELHI-15 and Anr.

Nafis-Ul-Afiin Vs Union of India and Anr.

Kirpal Singh Vs Superintendent Range 118 Central Goods and Service Tax & Anr.

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kunwer Sachdev Vs Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. & Anr.

Jincy Philip Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ramesh Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Hemant Kumar Goyal @ Harish Goyal Vs Yashwant Jain & Anr.

Narpat Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.