Vishal Kumar v. Union Bank of India

Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate 11/ 09.08.2023 Heard the parties.

At the very outset, the point of maintainability has been raised by the the respondent-Bank. It has been submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 3. the same, Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Countering learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition is maintainable in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It has been argued advertisement itself speaks regarding conducting of interview in the different States and Union Territory of India and also the Clause of Transfer shows that employee can be transferred to anywhere in India. Further, it has been argued that since examination was held at Jamshedpur and interview was conducted at Patna, it was open for the petitioner to file writ petition either at Bihar or at Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the petitioner tries to impress upon for taking sympathetic view that since petitioner is unemployed, he may be permitted to move this writ petition. Learned 2 counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, reported in (2022) 3 SCC 133, relevant para of which reads as under:

In Kusum Ingots case [Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254], the question involved was

whether the seat of Parliament would be a relevant factor for determining the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of the constitutionality of a parliamentary Act is under challenge

. After referring to the expression “cause of action” for territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, this Court held thus : (SCC p. 261, paras 18-21) India when “18. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the Court.

Passing of a legislation by itself in our opinion does not confer any such right to file a writ petition unless a cause of action arises therefor.

A distinction between a legislation and executive action should be borne in mind while determining the said question.

A parliamentary legislation when it receives the assent of the President of India and is published in the Official Gazette, unless specifically excluded, will apply to the entire territory of India. If passing of a legislation gives rise to a cause of action, a writ petition questioning the constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done because a cause of action will arise only when the provisions of the Act or some of them which were implemented shall give rise to civil or evil consequences to the petitioner. A writ court, it is well settled, would not determine a constitutional question in a vacuum.”

Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court since the cause of action did not arose, at any moment, at Jharkhand. It has been brought to the notice that the joining of the petitioner was refused at Pune and letter to that effect was issued by Mumbai office of respondent-Bank. Further none of the respondents are 3 residing in Jharkhand. Petitioner is seeking appointment in Pune Branch of respondent-Bank which falls within territorial jurisdiction of Maharashtra and as such, this writ petition is not maintainable before this Court.

From the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that instant writ petition is not maintainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 456 has held as under: “7. “Cause of action”, for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, for all intent and purport, must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It means a bundle of facts which are required to be proved. The entire bundle of facts pleaded, however, need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved is material facts whereupon a writ petition can be allowed.”

From the aforesaid legal proposition and from going through Section 20(c) of Civil Procedure Code, it is very much clear that cause of action is not within the State of Jharkhand and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court and the case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him.

Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed.

However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to file writ petition in the territorial jurisdiction of Mumbai. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)