In Re: T.S. Nageswara Rao

Chandra Reddy, Offg. C.J.

The question for consideration in this matter ether a petition under Art 226 of the Con (sic) of India to quash the order of the Gene (sic)anager, Central Railway, Bombay, could be (sic)ined in this Court, which has no territorial Section over the Tribunal.

The petitioner, who was a servant of the (sic)1 Railway, received a communication from (sic)neral Manager that his services were terrfli(sic) (sic)with effect from a particular date. This (sic)was communicated to the petitioner through (sic)ivisional Superintendent, Central Railway, (sic)tbad It is thus clear that the relief sought (sic)this petition is the removal of the order of (sic)eneral Manager, Central Railway, whose (sic)is located at Bombay and not within the (sic)tion of this Court. That being the case, ok that this Court cannot exercise any juris (sic)over the Tribunal and, consequently, can (sic)e a Writ of Certiorari to quash its order. (sic) Article 226 of the Constitution is in these (sic) Notwithstanding anything in Art. 32, (sic)ligh Court shall have power, throughout the (sic)ies in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction (sic)to issue to any person or authority includ(sic) appropriate.cases any Government, within those. territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, manda(sic) (sic)mus prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the (sic)rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

The power conferred on a High Court by CL (1) shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by CI. (2) of Art. 32."(4),It is manifest that the condition precedent to the issuance of a writ is that the Tribunal should be situated within the territories in relation to which the High Court is called upon to exercise its jurisdiction. If a tribunal or an individual is not amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226, a Writ cannot go against that tribunal or the individual. This view of ours is in consonance not only with the language of Art. 226 of the Constitution but also the judgments of the Supreme Court.

In Election Commission, India Vs. Saka Venkata Subba Rao and, the Supreme Court ruled. that the High Court of Madras could not issue a Writ under Art. 226. to the Election Commission having its office permanently located at New Delhi. To a similar effect is ''the judgment of the same Court in K.S. Rashid and Son Vs. The Income Tax Investigation Commission etc., The position is summed up thus by Mukherjee, J., as he then was (sic).

There are only two limitations placed upon the exercise of these powers by a High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution; one is that the power is to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. The other limitation is that the person or. authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue writs must be within those territories and this implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories.

Reliance is placed by Sri Bhujanga Rao, in support of his contention that since some records that might throw some light on this enquiry might be in the office of the Divisional Superintendent, Hyderabad, this Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for in the petition, on a decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others, We do not think that this ruling is apt in the context of the present enquiry. The question for consideration there was whether a writ could issue against a body which had become functus officio. The Supreme Court answered that question in the affirmative in the view that since the records that had to be called for were with the Tribunal situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the particular High Court, a Writ could be issued.

Venkatarama Ayyar, J. who delivered the judgment on behalf of the Bench, observed that since the writ for quashing was directed against a record and as a record could be: brought up only through human agency, it was issued to the person or authority whose decision was to be reviewed. If it was the record of the decision that was to be removed by the Writ of Certiorari, then the fact that the Tribunal that made the order had ceased to function, would not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the Court to remove the record.

We do not think that the decision in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others, has any analogy to the present case or would throw any light on the question of territorial jurisdiction. The other decision relied on by Mr. Bhujanga Rao, namely, Abdul Hamid Khan Vs. Kanpur Electric Supply Administration and Another, , does not carry the petitioner''s case any further. They are in consonance with the view of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others,

For these reasons, we think that the order of the General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay, cannot be reviewed by this Court on The process of certiorari, that body being outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. We accordingly dismiss this petition as not maintainable.