A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court at Allahabad comprising of Justice Sunita Agarwal, Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava decided in Manish Kumar Mishra vs Union of India (Writ A No.2071 of 2017) the question of territorial jurisdiction based upon service of the order challenged.
The issue framed by the bench was :
“This Larger Bench has been constituted under the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice on a reference made by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 25th January, 2017. In the writ petitions challenging the dismissal order and the order passed by the appellate and the revisional authority under the provisions of 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, a preliminary objection was raised with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It was argued that no cause of action or part of cause of action has accrued to the petitioners within the State of U.P. and merely because the appellate and the revisional order had been communicated to them at their respective home districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, same would not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the writ petitions.”
The Answer to the issues are
Mere service of notice would not give rise to a cause of action unless service of notice is an integral part of the cause of action. The answer to the question whether service of notice is an integral part of the cause of action within the meaning of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution must depend upon the nature of the impugned order giving rise to the cause of action. In order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition, it must be disclosed that the integral fact pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause so as to empower the Court to decide the matter and the entire or a part of it arose within its jurisdiction. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have the 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.