NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 1027 · Decided: 07-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) .7 S.C.R. 1027 
NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No.7414 of 2014) 
AUGUST 7, 2014. 
B 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.) 
CONSTITUTtON OF /NOIA, 1950: 
Art. 226 (2) - Territorial jurisdiction of High Court- Cause C 
of action -
Appellant, a Seaman in the off-shore Department 
of the Shipping Corporation of India - Subsequently found 
suffering from h&art muscles disease - Received order from 
Shipping Department of Government of India, Mumbai 
cancelling his registration as a Seaman, at his place of stay, o 
i.e. Gaya, Bihar- Writ petition by appellant for claims filed in 
Patna High Co'µrt -
Maintainability of - Held: The question 
whether or not cause of actiQn wholly or in part for filing a writ 
petition has arisen within the territorial limit of any High Court 
has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of E 
the proceedings under Art. 226 -
In order to maintain a writ 
petition, petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed 
by him has been infringed by -respondents within territorial 
limit of High Court's jurisdiction - In the instant case, a part 
or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of F 
Patna High Court where appellant received a letter of refusal 
disentitling him from disability compensation - Besides, when 
the writ petition was filed and entertained in Patna High Court, 
and, on hearing the respondents, interim relief was granted , 
they did not raise the que$tiori of jurisdiction initially -
The 
G 
impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter remitted 
to High Court for deciding the writ petition on merits -
Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 20 (c). 
The appellant joined the off-shore Department of the 
1027 
H 
1028 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A Shipping Corporation of India in November 1988. Later 
on, he was transferred to a main fleet in the Foreign Going 
Department. However, subsequently, as per certificate 
dated 18.3.2011 issued by Corporation's Assistant 
Medical Officer, he was considered permanently unfit for 
s sea service due to dilated cardiomyopathy (heart muscle : 
disease). Consequently, the Shipping Department of the 
Government of India, Mumbai issued order dated 
12.4.2011, cancelling registration of the appellant as a 
Seaman. The appellant settled at his native place Gaya, 
c Bihar and sent representations from there to the 
respondents for his claims including disability 
compensation claim. By letter dated 7.10.2011, 
respondent no. 2- Corporation communicated on the 
address of his native place that the appellant was entitled 
0 to severance compensation of Rs. 2,75,000/- but he was 
not entitled to disability compensation. In the writ petition. 
filed by the appellant, the Patna High Court granted 
interim relief. Subsequently when the writ petition was 
listed for hearing, it was dismissed by the High Court. for 
E lack of territorial jurisdiction. 
F 
In the instant appeal, the question for consideration 
before the Court was: whether the Patna High Court was 
correct in taking the view that it had no jurisdictlon to 
entertain the writ petition. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In order to overcome undue hardship and 
inconvenience to the citizens to invoke writ jurisdiction 
Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 was amended 
G in 1963 and further in 1976. On a plain reading of the 
amended provisions in Clause (2) of Art. 226, it is clear 
that the High Court can issue a writ when the person or 
the authority against whom the writ is issued is located 
outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action 
H wholly or partially arises within the High Court's territorial 
NAWAL KISl'-IORE SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA 
1029 
jurisdiction. Cause of action for t.he purpose of Art. 226 
A 
(2) of the Constitution, for alJ intent and purpose must be 
assigned the same meaning as envisaged uls 20(c) of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The _expression cause of 
action ha~ not been defined either in the Code of Civil 
Procedure or the Constitution. Cause of action is bundle 
B 
of facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the 
suit before he can succeed. [ppras 10 & 11]' [1036-F-H; 
1037-A] 
State of Rajasthan and Others.vs. Mis Swaika Properties C 
and Another, 1~85 (3) SCR 598; (1985) 3 SCC 217; Oil 
and Natural Gas Commission vs. :Utpal Kumar Basu and 
others, 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 252 = (1994) 4 SCC 711; 
Kusum Ingots & Allo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.