IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Transcription

1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.401/2012 (S-DIS) BETWEEN Byregowda Y.N, Aged about 41 years, S/o B. Nanjaiah, Ex-Constable, CISF, Now residing at Ta. Begur, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District APPELLANT (By Sri Ranganath S. Jois, Advocate for Ranganath S. Jois Assts.) AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi Inspector General, CISF, NES, Premises No. 553, East Kolkata Township Kasaba, Kolkata 107.

2 2 3. The Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, 553, East Kolkata Township Kasaba, Kolkata The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit K, OPT. Kolkata. RESPONDENTS This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.15816/2006(S-Dis) dated This writ appeal having been heard and reserved for pronouncement of judgment, this day, the Chief Justice delivered the following: J U D G M E N T Vikramajit Sen, C.J. This appeal assails the order dated passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15816/2006 declining to entertain the lis in the High Court of Karnataka. The petitioner/appellant was found guilty of dereliction of duty while he was posted in the Calcutta Port Trust and was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service. The learned Single Judge has taken into account this fact as well as the conduct of all proceedings in

3 3 Calcutta and the filing of an appeal and revision at Calcutta. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention with regard to cause of action having arisen at Bangalore, as the order was served on the petitioner at Bangalore, and this fact clothed this High Court with jurisdiction. 2. Indeed there is a plethora of precedents on this legal nodus. It would be both a formidable as well as an avoidable endeavour to consider High Court Judgments on this conundrum and would inexorably lead to prolixity so far as this judgment is concerned. Pragmatism would dictate that any study on this aspect of the law should confine itself to decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court. Even so restricted there is a multitude of decided cases. In view of a comparatively recent decision of the Five Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi titled Sterling Agro Industries Ltd., vs. Union of India pronounced on , where the views of the Apex Court have been analysed, our decision can conveniently rest thereon. The Five Judge Bench had perused the following: 1. K.S.Rashid and Son vs. The Income Tax Investigation Commission etc. AIR 1954 SC 207;

4 4 2. Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532; 3. Collector of Customs, Calcutta vs. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta, AIR 1963 SC 1124; 4. Sri Nasiruddin vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 2 SCC 671; 5. Union of India vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 646; 6. State of Rajasthan vs. Swaika Properties, AIR 1985 SC 1289; 7. A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. vs. A.P.Agencies, AIR 1989 SC 1239; 8. Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711; 9. Anti-Corruption Branch vs. Narayan Diwakar (1999) 4 SCC 656; 10. Navinchandra N.Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 2966; 11. Sita Ram Singhania vs. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2180; 12. Union of India vs. Adani Exports Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 567; 13. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd., vs. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254; 14. National Textile Corporation Ltd., vs. Haribox Swalram (2004) 9 SCC 786; 15. Mosaraf Hossain Khan vs. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd., (2006) 3 SCC Alchemist Ltd., vs. State Bank of Sikkim (2007) 11 SCC 335;

5 5 17. Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2007 (213) ELT 323 (SC); 18. Rajendran Chingaravelu vs. R.K.Mishra (2010) 1 SCC 457; 3. The following five principles were distilled from the above mentioned exposition of the law expressed by the Apex Court. i) The citus in Tribunal/Appellate Authority/Revision Authority is insufficient, in isolation of the cause of action as well as the concept of forum conveniens does not vest territorial jurisdiction. ii) Even a miniscule but meaningful part of the cause of action arises within a jurisdiction of a Court, entertainment of writ petition should not be refused. iii) Refusal to exercise jurisdiction cannot be placed within the confines of malafides. iv) Forum conveniens has an umbilical connection with the factual matrix of each case. v) The merger principle does not per se clothe the High Court over the jurisdiction of Appellate Authority with necessary jurisdiction for exercising writ powers.

6 6 4. Applying this enunciation of law to the facts before us, we find that the impugned order is impregnable to assault. The residence of the petitioner has no causal connection with the concept of forum conveniens, as the cause of action as well as all proceedings emerging from and consequent to it have been initiated and have found culmination beyond the territories of Karnataka. Ergo, the High Court of Karnataka should properly decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, which course commends itself for adoption by us in the present also. The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Snb/Vr