Petitioner sought reinstatement after dismissal by an authority at Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir. The court held no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction and the petition was not maintainable, allowing liberty to approach the jurisdictionally competent court.
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.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 17110/2026(Exemption)
W.P.(C) 3544/2026
prayers:-
a) Set aside the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the Respondent as well as kindly give the direction to Re-Estate / Rejoin the service of the petitioner as earlier as possible. b) Any other order or relief which Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
W.P.(C) 3544/2026
Page 1 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:2 3.03.2026 18:25:24
“4. 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
W.P.(C) 3544/2026
Page 2 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:2 3.03.2026 18:25:24
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.”
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MARCH 19, 2026 M
W.P.(C) 3544/2026
Page 3 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:2 3.03.2026 18:25:24
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging a dismissal order passed in Udhampur is maintainable before the Delhi High Court given the territorial jurisdiction of cause of action.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anand Kumar v. Union of India & OthersRelied on
2025:DHC:206-DB
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar BasuApplied
(1944) 4 SCC 711 · Who else cites this
Praveen Prakash Patil
Union of India
V. KAMESWAR RAO
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
