Dismissed¶¶40

Ex Const Crew Pramod Yadav v. Union of India through & Ors.

Territorial jurisdiction – writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Delhi HC14 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/403/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Forum non conveniens; territorial jurisdiction under Article 226; cause of action as bundle of facts; dismissal from BSF under rule 17 of BSF Rules, 1969 read with sec 11 of BSF Act, 1968; dismissal order passed at Silchar, Assam; inquiry certificates (swimming/boat handling); W.P.(C) 403/2025; High Court of Delhi; Pramod Yadav v. Union of India; liberty to approach jurisdictional High Court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court. ¶¶40

Ex Const Crew Pramod Yadav Vs Union of India through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

¶¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the dismissal order dated 17.09.2019 passed at Assam, given the petitioner's plea that the inquiry was finalised, the termination decision was received, and the selection process was conducted at Delhi.

¶¶4

Court's answer

“Cause of action” means a bundle of facts necessary for the petitioner to prove in order to succeed; it does not completely depend on the character of the relief prayed for, and a small part of the cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court is not a determinative factor compelling it to decide the matter — in such a case the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

The major cause of action arose at Assam, where the Show Cause Notice was issued, the petitioner's reply was considered, and the Impugned Order terminating his service was passed; therefore this Court is not the forum conveniens.

¶¶38

Key takeaways

Applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, this Court would not be the appropriate/convenient forum, and the Court declines to entertain the petition in exercise of its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶¶39
The petition and the pending applications are dismissed while reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court.ratio¶¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Territorial jurisdiction – writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – doctrine of forum non conveniens. A former BSF Constable (Crew), dismissed from service by the Inspector General, BSF, Frontier Headquarter, Silchar (Assam) on 17.09.2019 under rule 17 of BSF Rules, 1969 read with sec 11 of BSF Act, 1968 after an inquiry allegedly found his swimming and boat-handling appointment certificates were not issued to him, sought quashing of the dismissal and reinstatement before the Delhi High Court, pleading that the inquiry was finalised, the termination decision was issued, and the selection was conducted at Delhi. Held: “cause of action” is a bundle of facts necessary for the petitioner to prove; a small part of it arising within a High Court's territory is not determinative, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies. The Show Cause Notice, consideration of reply, and the Impugned Order were all at Assam; the major cause of action arose at Assam and Delhi is not the forum conveniens. The petition and pending applications were dismissed, with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

¶1

$~93

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 14.01.2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 403/2025

¶5

EX CONST CREW PRAMOD YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey & Mr. Adarsh Pandey, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

¶10

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

¶11

CM APPL. 2068/2025

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

W.P.(C) 403/2025 & CM APPL. 2067/2025

¶14

This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:

¶15

“(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records including the Court of Inquiry if was conducted and finalized illegally and used against the Petitioner to pass Impugned Order dated 17.09.2019 vide which Petitioner was dismissed and thereafter quash all such orders including the Court of Inquiry.

¶16

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus further, by directing the Respondents to permit the petitioner to the issuance of the Writ in the nature of Mandamus by directing the

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

W.P.(C) 403/2025

¶20

Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Da te:1 7.01.2025 15:46:46

¶21

Respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin services with all consequential benefits.”

¶22

The Impugned Order dated 17.09.2019 has been passed by the Inspector General, BSF, Frontier Headquarter, BSF, M&C, SILCHAR, PO- Arunachal, Distt.- Cachar (Assam), striking off the petitioner from the strength of the Water Wing Masimpur, HQ, BSF, M&C with effect from 17.09.2019, inter alia observing as under:

¶23

“3. Whereas, taking into consideration all the facts & circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that further retention of No 161200194 Const (Crew) Pramod Yadav in BSF is undesirable. I, therefore, dismiss No.161200194 Const (Crew) Pramod Yadav of Water Wing, BSF, Masimpur from service under rule, 17 of BSF Rules, 1969 read with sec 11 of BSF Act, 1968 with effect from 17 Sept’ 2019 (AN).”

¶24

The order having been passed at Assam, we enquired from the petitioner as to how he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for entertaining the present petition. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inquiry was finalised in Delhi. It had found that neither the Swimming Certificate (Reference No 42 dated 14.07.2015) was issued to the petitioner by the Adventure and Coaching Center, Jaipur Road, New Aadars Nagar, Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur (Rajasthan), nor the Boat Handling Experience Certificate (Reference No 0072 dated 04.04.2015) was issued to him by Dhana Laxmi Water Wing Mechanised Fishing Boat, Chinnamavari Street, Visakhapatnam, basis whereof the petitioner had obtained appointment in the BSF, this Court would have the jurisdiction to

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Da te:1 7.01.2025 15:46:46

¶28

entertain the present petition.

¶29

We do not find any merit in the submissions made. The petitioner for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, in the writ petition has pleaded as under:

¶30

“18. That the petitioner have the cause of action to approach this Hon 'ble Court because he not only the Inquiry was finalized in Delhi but even the received such decision to terminate him was issued from Delhi though the orders of dismissal was passed orders in Delhi but even the entire process of selection has been carried out in Delhi. Therefore, the petitioner have approached this Hon'ble Court by way of present Writ Petition.”

¶31

(Emphasis supplied)

¶32

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.

¶33

In the present case, before passing the Impugned Order, a Show Cause Notice had been issued to the petitioner at Assam, and the reply of the petitioner to the same is stated to have been considered before passing the Impugned Order at Assam. The petitioner is aggrieved by

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

W.P.(C) 403/2025

¶37

Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Da te:1 7.01.2025 15:46:46

¶38

the Impugned Order dated 17.09.2019, which had terminated his service. The said order, as noted hereinabove, has been passed at Assam. Therefore, the major cause of action has arisen at Assam it will not make this Court a forum conveniens .

¶39

Applying the principle of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, therefore, we are of the opinion that this Court would not be the appropriate/convenient Forum. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the present petition in exercise of the discretion vested in as under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

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

¶41

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶42

SHALINDER KAUR, J

¶43

JANUARY 14, 2025/ab/sk Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Page 4 of 4

¶46

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 403/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:1 7.01.2025 15:46:46

Ex Const Crew Pramod Yadav v. Union of India through & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ex Const Crew Pramod Yadav v. Union of India through & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

Mrs. Manju Jain Vs Managing Committee of Dayanand Model Secondary School and Anr.

M/S S.H. Enterprises Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax East Delhi

Prashant Reddy T. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mandeep Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Hawkers Surksha Foundation 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.

Jushvir Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pankaj Tiwari Vs Union of India & Ors.

Harendra Prasad Singh Vs Union of India (through Railway Ministry) & Anr.