Pawan Kumar Jaiswal v. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the

against the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 568 of 2016, in the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at 2 Indore (“the first petition), which was decided on

13.05.2016. The Court had then observed that “when the contract is already over, it is not proper when we should exercise the restricted jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” (iii) Again demand notice on 16.08.2016 and a recovery citation dated 07.11.2016 was issued against the petitioner, which was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8435 of 2016, before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench Indore, which was decided on 14.02.2017 (“the second petition”). The Court had quashed the demand notice dated 16.08.2016 as well as recovery citation

07.11.2016. The respondents were then given liberty to take fresh action, in accordance with law. (iv) A recovery citation was issued against petitioner by the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain to the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun. Then objections were raised by the petitioner that it is not permissible, in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Court in second petition. Accordingly, on 20.05.2019, the recovery citation was returned by the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun. (v) Now again, it is the case of the petitioner that on

13.02.2025, nullifying the earlier orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the first petition and the second petition, fresh letter was 3 written by the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain to the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun for recovery which was endorsed by the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun to the respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Dehradun, who thereafter, issued recovery citations, which are impugned.

4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioner, as to how, this Court can entertain this petition, keeping in view the aspect of territorial jurisdiction?

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would raise the following points:- (i) Earlier on two occasions, when the respondent no.4, the Collector, District Ujjain had initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner, they were successfully challenged by the petitioner in the first petition and the second petition. (ii) Thereafter, once again, in the year 2019, the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain has initiated the process of recovery which was returned by respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun, keeping in view the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, in the second petition. 4 (iii) The initial action of the respondent no.4, the Collector, District Ujjain was not inconformity with law by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in the first petition and the second petition. (iv) Knowing this fact, third time a communication has been sent by the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain to the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun for initiating recovery which is bad in the eye of law.

6. The petitioner has challenged the communication dated

20.03.2025 of the respondent no.3, In-Charge Officer (Collection), Dehradun. By which, the communication dated 13.02.2025 of the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain has been marked to Tehsildar and the petitioner has also challenged the subsequent recovery citation issued by the respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Dehradun.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Dehradun and the respondent no.3, In-Charge Officer (Collection) has been originated within the jurisdiction of this Court. They form cause of action to file the writ petition. This cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The property said to be attached falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The impugned communication dated 20.03.2025 of the respondent no.3, In-Charge Officer (Collection) is not issued by a competent officer.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down in the cases of Om 5 Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another, (2006) 6 SCC 207 and Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 9 SCC 329.

9. In the case of Om Prakash Srivastava (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of territorial jurisdiction and in para 8 observed as follows:- “8. Two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution on plain reading give clear indication that the High Court can exercise power to issue direction, order or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. (See ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu [(1994) 4 SCC 711] .)”

10. In the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) also the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the law on this point and in para 14 and 15 observed as follows:- “14. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India [(2006) 6 SCC 207 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 24] , answering a similar question this Court observed that on a plain reading of clause (2) of Article 226 it is manifestly clear that the High Court can exercise power to issue direction, order or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose if the cause of action in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territory. In para 7 this Court observed: (SCC p. 210) “7. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such 6 infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof.”

15. In Rajendran Chingaravelu v. CIT [(2010) 1 SCC 457 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 810] , this Court while considering the scope of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, particularly the cause of action in maintaining a writ petition, held as under: (SCC p. 461, paras 9 & 11) “9. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the Andhra Pradesh High Court was justified in holding that as the seizure took place at Chennai (Tamil Nadu), the appellant could not maintain the writ petition before it. The High Court did not examine whether any part of cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh. Clause (2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action arises wholly or in part, will have jurisdiction. This would mean that even if a small fraction of the cause of action (that bundle of facts which gives a petitioner, a right to sue) accrued within the territories of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court of that State will have jurisdiction.”

11. Learned State counsel would submit that no part of cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of this Court. It falls within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. He would submit that after the order passed in the second petition on 14.02.2017 by Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the deficiency has been corrected and the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain in his communication dated

13.02.2025 has recorded that now deficiency in the earlier demand notice and the recovery citations has been cured.

12. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is accepted. Sub Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India makes a specific provision in this regard as follows:- “(2) 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 7 Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.”

13. This Court is not adverting to the merits of this case. To the limited extent of entertaining this writ petition on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, this discussion is being made.

14. What is to be seen as to whether the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The cause of action means every fact, which it would be necessary for the party to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. In the case of Om Prakash Srivastava (supra), this expression has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows:- “12. The expression “cause of action” has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense “cause of action” means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, as noted above, the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in “cause of action”. (See Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Assn. v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 294] .)

13. The expression “cause of action” has sometimes been employed to convey the restricted idea of facts or circumstances which constitute either the infringement or the basis of a right and no more. In a wider and more comprehensive sense, it has been used to denote the whole bundle of material facts, which a plaintiff must prove in order to succeed. These are all those essential facts without 8 the proof of which the plaintiff must fail in his suit. (See Gurdit Singh v. Munsha Singh [(1977) 1 SCC 791] .)”

15. In the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. M/s Swaika Properties and another, (1985) 3 SCC 2017, a notice under sub-Section (2) of Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was served on a party at their registered office in Calcutta. This notice was challenged in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the relief could have been sought before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. Hon’ble Court observed that “the notification dated February 8,1984 issued by the State Government under Section 52 (1) of the Act became effective the moment it was published in the Official Gazettee as thereupon the notified land became vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. It was not necessary for the respondents to plead the service of notice on them by the Special Officer.” The Court also observed that “the entire cause of action culminating in the acquisition of the land under Section 52 (1) of the Act arose within the State of Rajasthan i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at the Jaipur Bench.”

16. In the instant case, twice the demand notice and recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent no.4, the Collector, District Ujjain had already been challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in the first petition and the second petition which were decided on 13.05.2016 and 14.02.2017 respectively. At present, the actions that were initiated by the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun, 9 respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Dehradun and the respondent no.3, In- Charge Officer (Collection) has its origin to the communication dated

13.02.2025 of the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain, by which a request for recovery has been made. In fact, the cause of action has been culminated in Ujjain within the territorial jurisdiction of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh,. Whatever action has been taken by the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun, the respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Dehradun and the respondent no.3, In-Charge Officer (Collection) that is for compliance of the communication dated

13.02.2025, issued by the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain, which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

17. It may be noted that earlier, a recovery citation was returned by the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun to the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain on 28.05.2019 on the ground that the recovery is not in compliance with the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed in the second petition. In the second petition, the demand notice and the recovery citations were set aside as was held that they were not issued by the officer competent to do so. Now, the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain writes to the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun that the deficiencies have been removed and the processes have been issued by the competent officer. It means that the cause of action had culminated in Madhya Pradesh, the moment letter dated 13.02.2025 was issued by the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain. It cannot be said that in the present case, any part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In view of it, the writ petition may not be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage. 10

18. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. Jitendra (Ravindra Maithani, J)

09.06.2025