The High Court held the writ petition not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2), as no cause of action arose in Bihar. Petition rejected.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19283 of 2012
====================================================== Ran Vijay Kumar S/o Sri Virendra Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Kazi Bazar, Bihari Road Hilsa, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda, State Bihar-801302 .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The Union of India through the General Manager, Regional Office West Zone Maharastra Food Corporation of India, Dheeraj Arma, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.P. Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad II, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 7 04-04-2013 Heard learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 23rd March, 2011 (Annexure-6) issued by the respondent-General Manager, Food Corporation of India (in short FCI), Regional Office, Maharashtra, Mumbai, whereby the final select list of candidates published on 26.2.2011 on the Website of FCI. against the recruitment advertisement dated 31.7.2010 for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III (Depot) and Assistant Grade-III (Accounts) was withdrawn/cancelled, and consequently, the offer of appointment issued to the petitioner was also withdrawn/cancelled, has
Patna High Court CWJC No.19283 of 2012 (7) dt.04-04-2013
2/3
preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness, propriety and validity of the impugned action of the respondent-Corporation as also the impugned order withdrawing the offer of appointment to the petitioner.
The learned Senior counsel submits that though the impugned order/communication has been issued by the respondent-General Manager from Mumbai on the address of the petitioner in the State of Rajasthan, but the petitioner is the resident of Bihar, therefore, he has a cause of action to assail the validity and correctness of the impugned order/communication of the respondent-Corporation before this Court.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein specific objection has been raised about the maintainability of the present writ petition before this Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that not even a fraction of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Bihar or within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, under the scheme and mandate of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. He has further
Patna High Court CWJC No.19283 of 2012 (7) dt.04-04-2013
3/3
drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 7.2.2013 passed in CWJC No. 6384 of 2011, wherein exactly similar issue was raised by the parties, and by a reasoned and speaking order this Court held that since no cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Bihar, therefore, that writ petition was held to be not maintainable before this Court.
After having heard the parties and taking into consideration the materials available on record as also for the reasons recorded in the order dated 7th February, 2013 passed in CWJC No. 6384 of 2011, this writ petition is held to be not maintainable before this Court. Accordingly, it is rejected. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum/court for appropriate relief admissible to him. It is clarified that if a fresh writ petition is filed before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction in the same subject matter, then the same shall be heard and decided on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order, and shall not be rejected on the ground of res-judicata.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
RPS/-
Ran Vijay Kumar
The Union of India
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
