Dismissed

Union of India and Ors. v. Ashok Kalra and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Apr 2013CWP/24045/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition concerning an order in Jammu and Kashmir, directing petitioners to approach the competent High Court while extending a specific interim order temporarily.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners relegated to approach the competent High Court of Jammu and Kashmir; interim order extended until 31.5.2013.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ashok… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No. 24045 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CM No. 3692 of 2013 in/and CWP No. 24045 of 2012 Date of decision: 8.4.2013

¶5

Union of India and others

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ashok Kalra and another

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

¶11

PRESENT: Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶13

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Reply to CM No. 3692 of 2013, filed by the petitioners in Court, is taken on record.

¶15

The Union of India and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are aggrieved by an order dated 26.4.2012 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, in Original Application No. 970/JK/2010, instituted by the first respondent-Ashok Kalra, who is working as an Inspector in CBI and presently posted in Chandigarh.

¶16

CWP No. 24045 of 2012

¶17

-2-

¶18

Learned counsel for the first respondent, however, raises an objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition, as according to him, the Original Application decided by the Tribunal, pertains to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the first respondent was actually posted at Jammu and Kashmir at the time of institution of the Original Application. Similarly, the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch, who was arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the Original Application is also placed at Jammu.

¶19

It may be true that the first respondent is presently posted at Chandigarh, the transfer being an incidence of service, but having regard to the fact that the original application pertains to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, we are inclined to follow the view taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Union of India and others Vs. Dheeraj Gupta and others, 2010 (3) SCT 570 and hold that even if some part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the same by itself could not be a determinative factor to confer jurisdiction on this Court.

¶20

The appropriate recourse for the petitioners would be, therefore, to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioners are accordingly relegated to invoke the jurisdiction of competent High Court in accordance with law. However, keeping in view the fact that the interim order dated December 05, 2012, was passed by this Court in the presence of learned counsel for the parties, we direct that the said interim order shall continue to operate till 31.5.2013, to

¶21

CWP No. 24045 of 2012 -3-

¶22

enable the petitioners to approach the High Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶23

Disposed of.

¶24

	( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE
April 08, 2013 rishu	( R.P. NAGRATH ) JUDGE

Union of India and Ors. v. Ashok Kalra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Ashok Kalra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ut of Chandigarh and Ors. Vs Arun Kumar

Gurmahavir Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Amarjit Singh Rana Vs State of Punjab etc.

Sonu @ Vikas Vs State of Haryana

Mehar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Sharwan Kumar and Others Vs Union of India and Others