Ramendra Kishore Prasad vs S. Bhattacharya and Others

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J—The petitioner, a resident of Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), has preferred this writ of quo warranto to oust the respondent No. 1 from the office of Chairman and Managing Director (for short ''CMD'') of Coal India Limited (for short ''CIL''). The petition was heard on admission, wherein, issue concerning jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a writ petition was also addressed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, before proceeding to deal with the merits of the matter, this Court would first dwell on the issue of its territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

Indisputably, the order of appointment of respondent No. 1 as CMD of CIL has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal at Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi on 18.12.2014. The respondent No. 2 is the Union of India arrayed through the Secretary of Ministry of Coal, which has its office in New Delhi. Similarly, the offices of the respondent No. 3 Public Enterprises Selection Board and the respondent No. 4 Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions are at New Delhi. The CIL, of which the respondent No. 1 has been appointed as CMD, has its headquarter at Kolkata (West Bengal). Thus, none of the respondents or their offices are located in the State of Chhattisgarh.

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted as to the jurisdiction of the Court inasmuch as, none of the respondents are located in the State of Chhattisgarh and the impugned order itself has been issued from an office stationed at New Delhi, learned counsel would submit that the CIL has many subsidiaries, out of which, one subsidiary has its headquarter at Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), therefore, the place of work of the respondent No. 1 would also be at Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), therefore, the writ petition has been preferred and the High Court of Chhattisgarh has jurisdiction over the matter.

The issue concerning the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has fallen for consideration on ''n''-number of occasions before the Supreme Court. Reference to some of them would be necessary to conclude the fate of the present writ petition.

In Election Commission, India Vs. Saka Venkata Subba Rao and, AIR 1953 SC 210 : (1953) 4 SCR 1144 , the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the writ Court would not run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction and that the person or the authority affected by the writ must be amenable to Court''s jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories.

A similar view was taken by another constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K.S. Rashid and Son Vs. The Income Tax Investigation Commission etc., AIR 1954 SC 207 : (1954) 25 ITR 167 : (1954) 1 SCR 738 .

These two constitution Bench judgments came up for consideration before a larger Bench of seven Judges of the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh Vs. The Union of India and Another, AIR 1961 SC 532 : (1961) 2 SCR 828 . Approving the two previous constitution Bench judgments, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that it is not permissible to read in Article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court. That jurisdiction depends on the person or authority passing the order being within those territories and the residence or location of the person affected can have no relevance on the question of the High Court''s jurisdiction. Their Lordships further held that the effect of an order by whomsoever it is passed can have no relevance in determining the jurisdiction of the High Court which can take action under Article 226. Functioning of a Government is really nothing other than giving effect to the orders passed by it. Therefore, it would not be right to introduce in Article 226 the concept of the functioning of Government when determining the meaning of the words ''any person or authority within those territories''. By introducing the concept of functioning in these words we shall be creating the same conflict which would arise if the concept of the place where the order is to have effect is introduced in Article 226. It further said, Article 226 as it stands does not refer anywhere to the accrual of cause of action and to the jurisdiction of the High Court depending on the place where the cause of action accrues being within its territorial jurisdiction. Proceedings under Article 226 are not suits; they provide for extraordinary remedies by a special procedure and give powers of correction to the High Courts over persons and authorities and these special powers have to be exercised within the limits set for them.

After the judgment in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh Vs. The Union of India and Another, AIR 1961 SC 532 : (1961) 2 SCR 828 , the Parliament introduced clause (1-A) in Article 226 by the Constitution (Fifteenth) Amendment Act, 1963 and subsequently, renumbered as clause (2) by the Constitution (Forty-Second) Amendment Act, 1976. The present provision contained in Article 226, clause (1) (2) are reproduced hereunder:

"226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.--(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part HI and for any other purpose.

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories."

Thus, after insertion of clause (2), the High Court can issue a writ when the person or the authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the Court''s territorial jurisdiction.

I would not refer to the other judgments because I have the advantage of more recent judgments on the issue.

In Alchemist Limited and Another Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Others, AIR 2007 SC 1812 : (2007) 136 CompCas 665 : (2007) 4 JT 474 : (2007) 4 SCALE 412 : (2007) 11 SCC 335 : (2007) 75 SCL 421 : (2007) 4 SCR 46 : (2007) 1 UJ 405 : (2007) AIRSCW 3023 the Supreme Court held that the expression ''cause of action'' has neither been defined in the Constitution nor in CPC, however, it may be described as a bundle of necessary facts to prove before he can succeed. It held, for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such facts constitute a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. If it is, it forms a part of cause of action. If it is not, it does not form a part of cause of action. In determining the said question, the substance of the matter and not the form thereof has to be considered.

In a very recent judgment, the Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2014) AIRSCW 4713 : (2014) 9 SCALE 244 : (2014) 9 SCC 329 , had an occasion to deal with the issue and having referred to its previous judgments rendered in the matters of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Swaika Properties and Another, AIR 1985 SC 1289 : (1985) 1 SCALE 1181 : (1985) 3 SCC 217 : (1985) 3 SCR 598 : (1985) 17 UJ 785 , Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others, (1994) 5 JT 1 : (1995) 109 PLR 245 : (1994) 3 SCALE 90 : (1994) 4 SCC 711 : (1994) 1 SCR 252 Supp , Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 2004 SC 2321 : (2004) 3 BC 56 : (2004) 120 CompCas 672 : (2004) 3 CompLJ 1 : (2004) 3 CTC 365 : (2004) 186 ELT 3 : (2004) 1 JT 475 Supp : (2004) 138 PLR 626 : (2004) 5 SCALE 304 : (2004) 6 SCC 254 : (2004) 1 SCR 841 Supp : (2004) AIRSCW 7357 : (2004) AIRSCW 2766 : (2004) 3 Supreme 757 : (2004) 6 Supreme 376 , Union of India and Others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and Another, AIR 2002 SC 126 : (2002) 79 ECC 457 : (2001) 134 ELT 596 : (2001) 9 JT 318 : (2001) 8 SCALE 72 : (2002) 1 SCC 567 : (2002) 1 UJ 261 : (2001) AIRSCW 4690 : (2001) 8 Supreme 48 , Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, (2006) 7 JT 35 : (2006) 7 SCALE 318 : (2006) 6 SCC 207 : (2006) 3 SCR 803 Supp : (2006) 2 UJ 953 and Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs. Mr. R.K. Mishra, Addl. Commissioner of IT and Others, (2010) 3 CTC 773 : (2009) 227 CTR 520 : (2010) 320 ITR 1 , held that the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court''s jurisdiction. In the case at hand, the lis brought before the Court is not about infringement of any of the legal right of the petitioner, but he seems to agitate the issue concerning of appointment of respondent No. 1, who according to the petitioner is an usurper of the office and needs to be ousted by issuance of writ of quo warranto.

While issuing such a writ, the locus of the petitioner or other technical objections which are normally attached to a petition seeking writ of mandamus or certiorari are not attracted yet in such a matter, the principles enunciated by the larger Bench decision in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh (supra) would apply inasmuch as if none of the respondents reside or located within the jurisdiction of the High Court and the petitioner has no legal right of him to be protected, the petition has to be presented before the High Court within whose jurisdiction, the respondents have their offices or where from the impugned order has been passed. Merely because the respondent No. 1 would have control over all the subsidiaries of CIL and coincidentally headquarter of one such subsidiary is located in the State of Chhattisgarh that would not confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain this writ petition.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Ex-consequentia, the writ petition is dismissed.