K. Padmaja vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, a resident of Hyderabad, filed a writ petition seeking an extension of her license period by 10 months, a refund of GST amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/-, and a reduction in license fees due to losses incurred from renovation work undertaken by the respondent. The petitioner had submitted representations to the respondent from Hyderabad. The respondent, located in Pune, Maharashtra, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Telangana High Court. The agreement was entered into in Pune, and the respondent's office is also situated there. The petitioner contended that her residence in Hyderabad and the submission of representations from Hyderabad constituted a part of the cause of action, making the petition maintainable.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction. While acknowledging that the petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad and had submitted representations from Hyderabad to the respondent in Pune, the Court found that these facts alone did not constitute a cause of action, or even a part of it, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Telangana High Court. The Court relied on Apex Court judgments in Navinchandra N. Majithia, Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, and Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India. These judgments emphasize that the 'cause of action' refers to the bundle of facts that the petitioner must prove to entitle them to a judgment. The Court cautioned against exercising jurisdiction merely because a trivial event connected to the cause of action occurred within the territorial limits, to avoid abuse of process and maintain the dignity of the institution. The Court also referred to its own previous decisions in N. Anjamma and Dumpala Madhusudhana Reddy, which dismissed petitions on similar grounds. Therefore, the Court concluded that the preliminary objection raised by the respondent was well-founded and sustainable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Telangana High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, considering that the agreement and the respondent authority are located in Pune, Maharashtra, and the alleged cause of action, if any, arose outside its territorial limits? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that her permanent residence within the territorial jurisdiction of the Telangana High Court, coupled with the submission of representations from Hyderabad, forms a part of the cause of action. She relied on the principle that citizens can approach the High Court of their native state for grievances, irrespective of the respondent's location, to avoid inconvenience and uphold the doctrine of 'Forum Convenience'. Precedents from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Delhi High Court were cited. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that there was no cause of action, or even a part thereof, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Telangana High Court. The agreement was executed in Pune, and the respondent authority is located there. The petitioner's residence in Hyderabad alone, without any other nexus to the cause of action within the court's jurisdiction, does not confer territorial jurisdiction.