Mansoor Ali S/O Mohd. Ayub vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. This was based on the principle that the cause of action must have a nexus or relevance with the lis involved in the case. The disciplinary proceedings and orders were passed by authorities outside Rajasthan, and the appellant was posted outside Rajasthan at the time of termination. The Court cited precedents like Unique Organics Limited and Somya Saxena, emphasizing that facts not relevant or germane to the grant of the prayer would not confer jurisdiction. Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on the merits of the disciplinary proceedings and orders were set aside as being without jurisdiction. However, the finding that the Court did not have territorial jurisdiction was upheld. The appellant was advised to avail alternative remedies.

Facts

The appellant, Mansoor Ali, a Constable (GD) in the CRPF, was terminated from service while posted in Nagaland. His appeal to the Appellate Authority and subsequent revision petition before authorities stationed in Patna, Bihar, were dismissed. He filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur. The appellant's initial selection and basic training in Ajmer, Rajasthan, were noted but deemed not to constitute part of the cause of action. The respondents argued that since the appellant approached the Court, the learned Single Judge examined the merits of the case. The appeal before the Division Bench concerned the Single Judge's decision to decide the case on merits despite observing a lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, had territorial jurisdiction to decide the writ petition, considering the disciplinary proceedings and orders were passed by authorities outside its jurisdiction, and the appellant was posted outside its jurisdiction, despite his initial training being in Rajasthan? (Issue of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution). Petitioner's contention: The learned Single Judge ought not to have decided the case on merits once it was observed that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. Respondents' contention: As the appellant-petitioner himself approached the Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in examining the merits of the case.