It is an evident fact that if the matter is not fallen within the jurisdiction of the court then no plea shall be heard by the court of the said territory. In the recent matter of Jitendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [W.P. (C) 9958/2021], the court emphasized the importance of territorial jurisdiction. The above matter was heard on September 10th 2021, and it was presided over by a single judge bench, consisting of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.
The facts pertinent to the above case are as follows. While relying on the decision given in the case of Jayswal Neco Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors [W.P. (C) 2103/ 2007], the petitioners contended that the court had jurisdiction as the matter is involving Railway board situated in Delhi.
According to the petitioners, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Uttar Pradesh has issued some demand letters that were needed to be duly met by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, and taking the above precedent as an authority, the petitioners filed the case in the Delhi High court.
The court, after hearing both the sides and evidence scrutinized, gave a comprehensive observation to the pertinent case. The court opined that the submissions of learned counsel is misplaced and factually not borne out from the records. Cause of action would accrue only where an action is taken by an authority by which petitioner is aggrieved.
Further, the court also held that “as, neither the authority i.e. the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager has its seat in Delhi, nor any action has been taken by the authority within the territory in respect of which this court exercises jurisdiction, this Court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.”