U.K. Kesharwani vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 9-1-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3874/2005, which reads as follows:

Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. A.G. with Ms. Sunita Jain, P.L. for the State.

The cause of action in the present case arose on 30-5-2000 (A-l), when the impugned order (A-l) was served on the petitioner. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as Superintending Engineer in the Office of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhopal. The order was also issued from Bhopal. Thus, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition under the provision of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, Registry is directed to transfer the case to High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.

The facts, briefly stated, are as under:

In the year 2000, the appellant/petitioner was working as a Superintending Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. While in service of the State of M.P., he was served with the order dated 30-5-2000 by which in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 18 of the M.P. Fundamental Rules period of his service from 9-8-99 to 3-3-2000 was declared as dies non. After re-organization of the State of M.P. on 1-11-2000, the appellant was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. The appellant challenged the said order before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Raipur by filing Original Application No. 708/2001. This O.A. was filed on 25-9-2001. Since both the successor States decided not to have Administrative Tribunal, and the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal was abolished, his matter remained pending before its Raipur Bench. Thereafter, the Chhattisgarh Rajya Prashasnik Adhikaran (Lambit Avam Nirakrit Avedano Ka Antaran) Adhiniyam, 2004 (Act No. 5 of 2004) (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 2004'') came into force and the pending matters before the Raipur Bench of the Administrative Tribunal, including the matter of the appellant, were transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act. When the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 9-1-2007, it was examined and the learned Single Judge passed the aforesaid order, which is under challenge in the appeal.

Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the learned Single Judge erred in law in holding that the Writ petition was not cognizable by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. His submission was that by virtue of provisions of Section 3 (3) of the Act, 2004, the High Court of Chhattisgarh alone would have jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition of the appellant/petitioner.

Per contra, Mr. Praveen Das, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent/State, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Writ Appeal.

Admittedly, the impugned order, Annexure P-l of the Writ Petition, was issued by the Competent Authority of the erstwhile State of M.P. on 30-5-2000 and was served on the appellant/petitioner while he was working as Superintending Engineer in the Office of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhopal (M.P.), therefore, no part of cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The appellant/petitioner had filed Original application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal because one of its Bench was functioning at Raipur which ultimately fell within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India provides that every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or those authority directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition and quo warranto or certiorari or any of them for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. Sub-clause (2) further provides that 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. Therefore, if no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court, the original jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised.

Mr. Agrawal argued that by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of Act, 2004, since a pending matter was transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh, the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the petition and would have finally disposed of the same.

The argument advanced by Mr. Agrawal cannot be accepted. The Act of 2004 was brought into force to provide for the transfer of applications and cases pending before and decided by M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which was abolished by the Government of India vide its notification dated 17th April, 2003. Since the State of Chhattisgarh did not constitute a Tribunal, therefore, the concerned Government brought this legislation with the enabling provisions contained in Section 3 with an intention to transfer the matters pending before the Tribunal, so that, they can be disposed of by the High Court or Civil Courts as the case may be. In the present case, the matter stands transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh as an effect of coming into force of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 2004 and thereafter the learned Single Judge examined it on merits and found that since no part of cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, the matter cannot be entertained in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

No cost.