Acts/Rules/Orders:
Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43-A and 226(2)
Case Referred:
K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income tax Investigation Commission and Others, AIR 1954 SC 207
JUDGEMENT
R.P. Sethi, C.J.
1. Aggrieved by the memorandum to witness oral lease dated 27-8-1996, Annexure-G, executed between respondent 2 and respondent 4, the appellant herein filed writ petition praying for:
'(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction prohibiting the 2nd respondent from handing over any machinery to any other party including the 4th respondent and further prohibit the respondents 2 and 4 from lifting the machinery from the Mangalore Yard of the Mazagon Dock Limited in the interest of justice and equity;
(b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent to award the work to the Mangalore Yard of the Mazagon Dock Limited and further direct the 2nd respondent to execute the work that has been awarded to the Mazagon Dock Limited uniformly in all the 3 years in the interest of justice;
(c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd respondent not to get the orders executed through private companies as the same is contrary to the objects enumerated in the Memorandum of Association of the 2nd respondent and also is against public policy and is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
(d) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the Memorandum to witness Oral Lease dated 27-8-1996 marked at Annexure-G as the same is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and also is contrary to Articles 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43-A of the Constitution and as the same is against public policy.
2. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that as no part of cause of action had accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and issue the directions prayed for by the appellant.
3. Article 226 of the Constitution of India was amended and substituted by a new Article by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976. Again in the year 1978 the Article was substituted vide 44th Amendment Act with this result that the original Article 226 was restored with some modification. In view of the 42nd Amendment, the jurisdiction of the High Court could have been invoked for the enforcement of the fundamental rights or to redress any injury of substantial nature caused by contravention of statutory provisions and to redress any injury by reason of illegality in any proceedings resulting in substantial failure of justice. A comparative study of the original Article and as substituted vide 42nd Amendment clearly showed that the scope of writ jurisdiction was much reduced. However 44th Amendment specifically omitted all the amendments which had reduced the jurisdiction of the High Court. Article 226 of the Constitution prescribed a two-fold limitation on the jurisdiction of this Court in its territorial aspect, i.e., the power could be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which the High Court exercised the jurisdiction and to the personal authority to whom the writs are issued within the territories subject to the jurisdiction of the High Courts held in K.S. Rashid and Son v Income-tax Investigation Commission and Others. However after 15th Amendment Act, 1963, the High Courts were conferred the powers to exercise jurisdiction against the authorities irrespective of the residence or location of offices, if any part of the cause of action had accrued to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the petition is filed. It follows therefore that even if the seat of the authority or person concerned is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, jurisdiction under Article 225 of the Constitution can be exercised in respect of such matter if whole or any part of the cause of action had arisen within such territory. Amendment to Article 226 by the 15th Amendment was only procedural and therefore retrospective. It is now well-settled that where a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of a particular Court, that Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition and grant the relief. If the petitioner succeeds in showing that the impugned order affected him or the authority passing the order resides or is situate within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court, that High Court would have the jurisdiction to grant the relief. In a case where none of these conditions are shown to be existing, the High Court would refuse to entertain the petition for grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. 'Cause of Action' means a bundle of essential facts which it is necessary for the parties to prove, to justify the seeking of a judicial remedy. It is always for the petitioner to show that at least one of such essential facts required to be proved to secure an order in his favour had arisen within the territory of the High Court, that Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 'Cause of Action' in the restricted sense mean the circumstances forming the infringement of the right or the immediate occasion for the action and in the wider sense means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of an action, including not only the infraction of the right but the infraction coupled with the right itself. It is acknowledged that the 'Cause of Action' means every fact which is necessary for the petitioner to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to be proved. A cause of action is something more than a ground or unity of title and it not only includes the facts necessary to support the petitioners title, but also the facts which entitled him to a relief against a particular person or authority. Facts of each case would determine as to whether any person has got a cause of action having reference to the substance and the prayers made.
5. In the instant case the writ petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that as the infringing decision had been taken at Bombay this Court had no jurisdiction notwithstanding the fact that the decision was likely to, allegedly, adversely affect the interests of the appellant. The averments made in the writ petition clearly showed that the impugned action of the respondents in the form of the memorandum to witness oral lease was admitted to have its effect and repercussions with respect to the property in the State of Karnataka and non-suit the appellants with respect to the claims made by them in their prayer particularly for issuance of direction to the respondent 1 to award the work, subject-matter of lease, to the Mangalore Yard of the Mazagon Dock Limited and further to direct the respondent 2 to execute the work uniformly in all the three years. It would also result in denying the relief to the appellant seeking direction for prohibiting the second respondent from handing over the machinery to the 4th respondent. The appellants had relied upon the report of the Committee appointed by the Government and had submitted that the Mangalore Yard was fully equipped to perform the pipe coating. The second respondent was said to have invested more than Rs. 400.00 crores in the project on equipment, machinery and the personnel for carrying out the pipe coating. It was further alleged that if the machinery was leased out and the infrastructure of the pipe coating was removed, the Mazagon Dock Ltd. would not be in a position to execute the same. Respondents 1 to 3 were alleged to be not justified in diverting the work to the private contractors when Mangalore Yard and public undertaking was fully equipped to meet the requirements. The action of the respondents was alleged to be manifestly illegal which affected the employees, property and the Institution within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Serious allegations regarding violation of fundamental rights as enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution were also made. The averments made in the petition sufficiently showed the accrual of substantial part of cause of action within the State of Karnataka. The learned Single Judge was therefore not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of jurisdiction.
6. Under the circumstances the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The case is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for disposal on merits and in accordance with law. No costs.