Judgment:
D.N. Patel, J.
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had served in the State of Bihar as Sub Inspector and he retired on 29th February, 2004 from the State of Bihar, especially from Patna Special Branch, Bihar and now, the petitioner is staying within the State of Jharkhand and he wants pension from the Treasury office of Lohardaga, State of Jharkhand and therefore, the present petition has been preferred.
2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that necessary information have already been given by the Accountant General Office, State of Bihar to the Accountant General, State of Jharkhand, so as to make the payment of the pension, from the State of Jharkhand.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondents-State submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition, looking to Sub Article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as no cause of action, much less, any part of the action has been arisen, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, looking to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in : (1994) 4 SCC 710, : (1994) 4 SCC 711, : (2007) 5 SCC 336, when no cause of action has been arisen, within the State of Jharkhand, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents-State that the petitioner has served for the whole life, within the State of Bihar even after, bifurcation of the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand, the petitioner continues to be an employee of the State of Bihar and retired as Sub Inspector on 29th February, 2004 from the State of Bihar and hence, this Court may not entertain the writ petition, preferred by the present petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents-State that locus of a person is not to be seen, at all, A person may move from Jammu Kashmir to Kanyakumari, but, what has to be seen under Sub Article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is cause of action. If any part of the action is arisen over here, then only this Court can entertain this writ petition and in view of the aforesaid decisions and also looking to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed,
4. I have heard learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, who has also submitted that as no cause of action or part of any action has arisen, within the territorial limits of this Court, this petition may not be entertained by this Court. Prior to bifurcation of the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand, the petitioner was serving at Patna or at State of Bihar and even after, the bifurcation, the petitioner continues his services with the State of Bihar and retired from the State of Bihar on 29th February, 2004. Thus, so far as the payment of pension etc. are concerned, this writ petition may not be entertained and the petitioner is not remedyless. He can approach before appropriate Court for his grievances.
5. In view of the above decisions as well as the decision rendered by this Court dated 8th May, 2009 in W.P.(S) No. 7394 of 2006, which has also taken this Court to the meaning of word 'Cause of Action' as bundle of the facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court.
6. The expression 'cause of action' means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. It means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. Negatively, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. For every action there has to be a cause of action, if not. the plaint or petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily. The entire bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved before the petitioner can obtain a decree, is the material facts. The material facts is also known as integral facts. All necessary facts must from an integral part of the cause of action. Unless the facts pleaded are such as have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case, they cannot give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction. The facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to cause of action.
7. In view of the aforesaid decisions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, for the following facts and reasons:
(i) The present petitioner was working as police personnel at State of Bihar, prior to bifurcation and after bifurcation of State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand, the petitioner retired as Sub Inspector on 29th February, 2004 from the State of Bihar. The petitioner never served within the State of Jharkhand.
(ii) It appears that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition only on the ground that the petitioner is staying within the State of Jharkhand now, after his retirement and he wants to draw his pension from the State of Jharkhand. Thus, only on the ground of locus within the State of Jharkhand, the present petition has been preferred and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India reads as under:
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.-
XXX XXX XXX
(2) The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(iii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd. as reported in : (1994) 4 SCC 710, in paragraph No. 2, as under:
2. We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court of Calcutta should have exercised jurisdiction in a case where it had absolutely no jurisdiction. The contracts in question were executed at Aligarh, the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh, even the contracts provided that in the event of dispute the Aligarh Court alone will have jurisdiction. The arbitrator was from Aligarh and was to function there. Merely because the respondent was a Calcutta-based firm, the High Court of Calcutta seems to have exercised Jurisdiction where it had none by adopting a queer line of reasoning. We are constrained to say that this is a case of abuse of jurisdiction and we feel that the respondent deliberately moved the Calcutta High Court ignoring the fact that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. It clearly shows that the litigation filed in the Calcutta High Court was thoroughly unsustainable.
(Emphasis supplied)
(iv) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil And Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu as reported in : (1994) 4 SCC 711, especially in paragraph No. 12, as under:
12. Pointing out that after the issuance of the notification by the State Government under Section 52(1) of the Act, the notified land became vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and hence it was not necessary for the respondents to plead the service of notice under Section 52(2) for the grant of an appropriate direction or order under Article 226 for quashing the notification acquiring the land. This Court therefore, held that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. This Court deeply regretted and deprecated the practice prevalent in the High Court of exercising Jurisdiction and passing interlocutory orders in matters where it lacked territorial jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the strong observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decision and in the earlier decisions referred to therein, we are distressed that the High Court of Calcutta persists in exercising jurisdiction even in cases where no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. It is indeed a great pity that one of the premier High Courts of the country should appear to have developed a tendency to assume jurisdiction on the sole around that the petitioner before it resides in or carries on business from a registered office in the State of West Bengal We feel all the more pained that notwithstanding the observations of this Court made time and again, some of the learned Judges continue to betray that tendency. Only recently while disposing of appeals arising out of SLP Nos. 10065-66 of 1993, Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd., this Court observed:
We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court of Calcutta should have exercised jurisdiction in a case where it had absolutely no jurisdiction.In that case, the contract in question was executed at Aligarh, the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh, the contracts provided that in the event of dispute the Aligarh court alone will have jurisdiction, the arbitrator was appointed at Aligarh and was to function at Aligarh and yet merely because the respondent was a Calcutta-based firm, it instituted proceedings in the Calcutta High Court and the High Court exercised Jurisdiction where it had none whatsoever. It must be remembered that the image and prestige of a court depends on how the members of that institution conduct themselves. If an impression gains ground that even in cases which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, certain members of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the Jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire system to ridicule. We are greatly pained to say so but if we do not strongly deprecate the growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be Jailing in our duty to the institution and the system of administration of justice. We do hope that we will not have another occasion to deal with such a situation.
(Emphasis supplied)
(v) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. General Manager-Human Resource, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde as reported in : (2007) 5 SCC 336, especially in paragraph No. 15, as under:
15. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that the order invalidating the caste certificate had been passed by the Scrutiny Committee at Nagpur and, therefore, the earlier two writ petitions filed by the respondent were maintainable before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. However, in the third and final writ petition the order under challenge was the order of termination of service which was passed by the appellant on 16-7-2004 at Hyderabad as the respondent was working with Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd.'s Heavy Power Equipment Plant, Hyderabad. Therefore, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition wherein challenge was raised to the said order. However, in order to cut short the litigation and settle the controversy we have decided the case on merits.
(Emphasis supplied)
(vi) Thus, in the aforesaid case also, the petitioner of that case was serving at Hyderabad. His services were terminated by the order from Hyderabad and he had filed a petition in Nagpur and it was held that the petition was not tenable at Nagpur. In the facts of the present case also, the petitioner was serving at Bihar. Petitioner is getting his pension from State of Bihar and merely because the petitioner resides in the State of Jharkhand, after his retirement, will not give a territorial jurisdiction to this Court.
8. Thus, looking to the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, no cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of the State of Jharkhand, Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. This writ petition is dismissed, only on the aforesaid ground, without entering into the merits of the case, reserving liberty with the petitioner to move before appropriate Court, in accordance with law.