There is no reason for this High Court to assume jurisdiction over the issue only because the impugned orders were served upon the petitioner at his home address, when the substantial and integral part of the cause of action arose beyond the jurisdiction of this court: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court passed a judgment on 30th October 2019 addressing the issue of territorial jurisdiction in the case where the removal from service of the petitioner was challenged. This was seen in the case of Tarak Nath Nayak v. the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force W.P 18991 (W) of 2019. The case was presided over by the Honourable Justice Amrita Sinha.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner is a member of the Central Reserve Police Force, stationed at Kashmir, against whom disciplinary action was taken due to him overstaying his leave. The disciplinary authority passed the final decision to remove in from service on June 2016.
The petitioner went ahead with the appeal against the said dismissal but it was dismissed by the appellate authority. As a result, the petitioner approached the High Court of Calcutta under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order of the disciplinary authority.
The petitioner claimed that he was suffering from various ailments and that is why he could not join immediately after the expiry of his leave period. He has submitted detailed reports and documents to support his claims and the same was not considered by the authority.
The question arose as to whether the Calcutta High Court has the jurisdiction to preside over the case. It was argued by the petitioner that all the communications were made to him at his home in Burdwan and as he preferred the appeal and revision petition from the same place, hence, part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The Court was not satisfied with the submissions made by the petitioner regarding the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the court. The facts of the case indicate that the entire part of the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of the court and the communication aspect cannot be treated as an integral part of the cause of action.
“What is important is to ascertain whether the legal right of the petitioner stood infringed within the jurisdiction of the court approached by him. In the case at hand, the right of the petitioner stood infringed by the authority outside the jurisdiction of this court.”
Disagreeing with the petitioner’s submissions, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition citing a lack of territorial jurisdiction but mentioning that this order will stand in the way of the petitioner to claim his right in front of the rightful authority.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of the best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SAYANTANI RAKSHIT