Kaliram Rahadvey Vs. Union of India - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Judgment:

1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.1556/2010 Kaliram Rahadvey & others versus Union of India & others ____________________________________________________________ Present : Hon’ble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned senior Counsel with Shri Sahidullah Baig, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1.

Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Counsel for respondent No.2.

Ms.Shraddha Tiwari, learned Counsel for respondent No.4.

Shri Dinesh Kaushal, learned Counsel for respondent No.5.

____________________________________________________________ ORDER

(06/08/2013) This petition is heard on the question of maintainability of the petition before this Court.

The grievance of the petitioners in the petition is that the wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioners No.2 to 5 had gone to holy Amarnath Cave for worship along with the petitioneRs.While coming back, a Helicopter belonging to respondent No.4, coming back from the holy cave, met with an accident and fallen down on account of which the wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioners No.2 to 5 sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death.

Alleging that appropriate arrangements, medical aids were not provided, a compensation of Rs.55,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% has been claimed in this writ petition.2.

While the respondents were served with the notice of the writ petition, an objection was taken by them with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as according to the respondents, the cause of action for filing of such a claim was available to the petitioners in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and not within the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Only because of the residential address of the petitioners in this State, it is contended that a writ petition would not be maintainable.

It is further contended by them that any liability whatsoever is to be decided in proper claim if made before the appropriate forum as per the law and not in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The claims made in the petition are denied by the respondents.”

3. Learned senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Union of India is a party in the present petition and for the said respondent No.1, a writ petition would lie before this Court.

This being so, it is contended that if partly the claim can be made before this Court, still the writ petition would be maintainable.

Referring to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of another High Court, it is contended that still the claim would be maintainable in case there is some negotiation going on between the parties and such a direction could be issued to finalize the negotiation.”

4. The Constitution of India specifically prescribes power of a High Court to issue certain writs.

In sub-clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is specifically prescribed that the power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

It is to be seen 3 whether cause of action for filing of the present writ petition has remotely arisen within the State of Madhya Pradesh or not.

Admittedly, the accident had taken place within the territories of Jammu & Kashmir.

If any claim was to be filed for damages, the territorial jurisdiction of the particular Court situated within the said State was required to be exercised.

Such jurisdiction is not available with this court.

Even if there is some negotiation going on between the parties and either the negotiation fails or culminated in any agreement, the said agreement is to be enforced by the Court where the cause of action arises and not by a Court having no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim.

That being so, the law laid-down by the Division Bench of other High Court would not be helpful to the petitioneRs.5.

The petition is not maintainable before this Court, therefore, the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.

(K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc