LexOM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-._ OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. JULY 24, 2006 [ ARIJIT PASAYA T AND ALT AMAS KABIR, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Writ petition filed in Delhi High Court raising issues relating to conditions of prisoners in the State of UP.-Disposing of the writ C petition, Delhi High Court observed that it may have jurisdiction, but the issues can be more effectively dealt with by the Allahabad High Court- Correctness of-Held: This is not a correct way of dealing with the petition -Delhi High Court ought to have said that no part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction-ft did not say so-Hence matter D remitted to Delhi High Court for fresh consideration. Article 226-Writ petition-Maintainability-Territorial jurisdiction - Held: Petitioner is required to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed within territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction. Words and phrases: Cause of action-Meaning of-Discussed-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 20. Appellant had come to India by way of extradition from Singapore. He was facing trial in eight cases. He filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court taking the stand that he was being tried in several cases contrary to E F the extradition decree and that he was being kept in solitary confinement without proper medical aid in the Central Jail in the State of U.P. High Court disposed of the Writ Petition holding that the Allahabad High Court would G also have jurisdiction to deal with the grievances of the writ petitioner and can deal with conditions of prisoners in that State more effectively, though the Delhi High Court may have jurisdiction. 803 H 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that merely because he had a choice of going before the Allahabad High Court, the Delhi High Court should not have refused to consider the writ petition. Respondent contended that no part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi and the Delhi High Court has rightly observed that the appellant can B pursue his remedy before the Allahabad High Court. Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to Delhi High Court, the Court HELD: I.I. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in C 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 D the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof. 1807-G-H; 808-AI 1.2. Two clauses of Article 226 on plain reading give clear indication that the High Court can exercise power to issue direction, order or writs for E the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part Ill 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. 1808-B-Cj F G Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors., 119941 4 sec 711, relied on. 2.1 By "cause of action" it is meant every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Co•1rt. In a generic and wide sense (as in Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908) "cause of action" means every fact, which it is necessary to establish to support a right to obtain a judgment. 1808-D, El Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai and Ors., 119941 6 SCC H 322 and Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, [19981 6 SCC 514, OM PRAKASH SR!V AST AV Av. U.O .I. 805 relied on. 2.2. It is settled law that "cause of action" consists of bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an A act no cause of action would
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.