# C/M Shri Paras Nath Anusuchit Prathmik Pathshala Thru. Its Manager & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 867
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-31
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 747 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-shri-paras-nath-anusuchit-prathmik-pathshala-thru-its-manager-ors-v-state-50465
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 -
Territorial Jurisdiction - When cause of
action arises at more than one place -
Principles
of
Dominus
Litis
-
Forum
Conveniens - Principles of Forum Non
Conveniens - In a civil proceeding, when
cause of action arises at more than one
place, the plaintiff is the Dominus Litis, it is
the plaintiff/petitioner who has discretion to
choose the place where he desires to file the
petition. However, this discretion is not
absolute. An exception arises based on the
principle of Forum Non Conveniens, the
court can determine the convenient forum
and impose conditions in the interest of
justice for the exercise of such jurisdiction.
Court, in appropriate cases, can exercise its
inherent jurisdiction to fix the forum,
considering
convenience
of
parties,
witnesses, the court, and other relevant
factors impacting the proceedings. Once
petitioner choose a forum, he should
normally adhere to it unless valid reasons
justify a change. Shifting forums disrupts
judicial efficiency, and hopping between
forums would be highly inconvenient to the
functioning of the court (Para 12, 18).

B.
United
Provinces
High
Court
(Amalgamation) Order, 1948, Clause 14 -
Chief Justice while sitting at Lucknow can
transfer a writ petition from Lucknow to
Allahabad. However, neither under the High
Court Rules nor under the United Provinces
High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948,
does the Chief Justice have any power to
transfer a case from Allahabad to Lucknow
(Para 14).

C. In the present case, petitioners had the
option to approach either the High Court at
Allahabad or at Lucknow. In three previous
proceedings, petitioners chose the High
Court at Allahabad for filing their writ
petitions and contempt applications. Last
petition filed at Allahabad was subsequently
withdrawn by them. However, it was
unclear under what circumstances, and with
what liberty, if any, the petition was allowed
to be withdrawn. Court found it appropriate
to refuse the exercise of its discretionary
jurisdiction in permitting the petitioners to
maintain the present writ petition at
Lucknow. Court held that Allahabad was the
appropriate forum for the petition. (Para 20)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. C/M Shri Paras Nath Anusuchit Prathmik Pathshala Thru. Its Manager & Ors. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
867
is continuing, the petitioners shall not be
dispossessed from the property, in issue.

39. In view of the age of litigation, it
is further provided that the revenue Court
concerned shall conclude the proceedings
within a period of one year from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
For concluding the proceedings within the
time
specified,
the
revenue
Court
concerned
shall
avoid
unnecessary
adjournments.

40. With the aforesaid, the petition is
dismissed. Costs made easy.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 867
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ-C No. 747 of 2023

C/M Shri Paras Nath Anusuchit Prathmik
Pathshala Thru. Its Manager & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Girish Chandra Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 -
Territorial Jurisdiction - When cause of
action arises at more than one place -
Principles
of
Dominus
Litis
-
Forum
Conveniens - Principles of Forum Non
Conveniens - In a civil proceeding, when
cause of action arises at more than one
place, the plaintiff is the Dominus Litis, it is
the plaintiff/petitioner who has discretion to
choose the place where he desires to file the
petition. However, this discretion is not
absolute. An exception arises based on the
principle of Forum Non Conveniens, the
court can determine the convenient forum
and impose conditions in the interest of
justice for the exercise of such jurisdiction.
Court, in appropriate cases, can exercise its
inherent jurisdiction to fix the forum,
considering
convenience
of
parties,
witnesses, the court, and other relevant
factors impacting the proceedings. Once
petitioner choose a forum, he should
normally adhere to it unless valid reasons
justify a change. Shifting forums disrupts
judicial efficiency, and hopping between
forums would be highly inconvenient to the
functioning of the court (Para 12, 18).

B.
United
Provinces
High
Court
(Amalgamation) Order, 1948, Clause 14 -
Chief Justice while sitting at Lucknow can
transfer a writ petition from Lucknow to
Allahabad. However, neither under the High
Court Rules nor under the United Provinces
High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948,
does the Chief Justice have any power to
transfer a case from Allahabad to Lucknow
(Para 14).

C. In the present case, petitioners had the
option to approach either the High Court at
Allahabad or at Lucknow. In three previous
proceedings, petitioners chose the High
Court at Allahabad for filing their writ
petitions and contempt applications. Last
petition filed at Allahabad was subsequently
withdrawn by them. However, it was
unclear under what circumstances, and with
what liberty, if any, the petition was allowed
to be withdrawn. Court found it appropriate
to refuse the exercise of its discretionary
jurisdiction in permitting the petitioners to
maintain the present writ petition at
Lucknow. Court held that Allahabad was the
appropriate forum for the petition. (Para 20)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:
1.
Sri
Nasiruddin
Vs
St.
Transport
Appellate Tribunal (1975) 2 SCC 671
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari
Parishad, Lucknow Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.(1995) 4 SCC 738
3. Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs St. of Mah.
& ors.(2000) 7 SCC 640
4. Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs R.K. Mishra,
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax &
ors.(2010) 1 SCC 457
5. Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs U.O.I. .&
ors.(2014) 9 SCC 329
6. Nitya Nand Tiwari Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.(1994) LCD 1181
7. Ashok Kumar Arora Vs St. of U.P. (Special
Appeal No.285 of 2021) decided on 19.8.2021
8. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs U.O.I. &
anr.(2004) 6 SCC 254
9. Krishna Veni Nagam Vs Harish Nagam,
(2017) 4 SCC 150
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. The petitioners, two educational
institutions, which are running primary
schools, have approached this Court for a
mandamus commanding State respondents
i.e. Additional Chief Secretary/Principal
Secretary, Department of Social Welfare,
U.P., Lucknow to issue order for grant-inaid as per decision dated 20.9.2019 taken
by respondent no.1 and by Minister of the
department.

2. The facts of case including
previous litigation between parties, in brief,
are that petitioner nos.1 and 3, which are
educational societies established in the
years 1971 and 1981 respectively, claimed
that their institutions are entitled to be
brought
under
grant-in-aid
list.
The
institutions run by them were in District
Gorakhpur, which was later on bifurcated
and now institutions are in newly created
District Maharajganj. The said institutions
were recognized since the years 1982 and
1986
respectively.
Since
their
representations were not being decided,
hence, they filed Writ-C No.62957 of 2017
"Committee of Management Shri Paras
Nath Anusuchit Prathmik Pathshala and
another vs. State of U.P. and others" at
Allahabad. The said writ petition was
disposed of by order dated 5.1.2018,
requiring respondent-authority to decide
representation of petitioners. Since the said
direction was not being complied with by
respondents
and
representation
of
petitioners remained pending, petitioners
filed
Contempt
Application
(Civil)
No.6170
of
2019
"Committee
of
Management Shri Paras Nath Anusuchit
Prathmik Pathshala and another vs. Sri
Manoj Singh, Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Government of U.P." again at
Allahabad. The Court issued contempt
notices against the respondents. It appears
that thereafter respondents proceeded to
consider the case of petitioners and
administrative approval was also granted
by Principal Secretary concerned on
20.9.2019 and it also appears that the same
was also approved by the Minister
concerned. Thereafter, Principal Secretary
on 24.1.2020 passed an order rejecting the
claim of petitioners directing the office not
to issue a final order on the basis of earlier
administrative order. Against the said order
dated 24.1.2020, petitioners filed Writ-C
No.7120 of 2020 again at Allahabad.

3. The petitioners claim that they
were
not
aware
about
order
dated
20.9.2019 and on gaining knowledge of the
said fact, they moved an application for
withdrawal of Writ-C No.7120 of 2020
filed at Allahabad. The said petition was
6 All. C/M Shri Paras Nath Anusuchit Prathmik Pathshala Thru. Its Manager & Ors. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
869
dismissed as withdrawn on 14.7.2022.
Thereafter, petitioners preferred present
writ petition before this Court at Lucknow
on becoming aware of order dated
20.9.2019. Present writ petition before this
Court was filed on 23.1.2023.

4. In the given circumstances, at the
very outset, learned Standing Counsel
raises preliminary objections that since
petitioners had filed their earlier three
petitions at Allahabad and has thus chosen
the jurisdiction at Allahabad, it was not
open for them to file their 4th petition at
Lucknow, therefore, this Court should
refuse
to
exercise
its
discretionary
jurisdiction on the principles of forum non
conveniens. He further submits that prayers
and orders of earlier petition are not before
this Court, more particularly whether
earlier petition was withdrawn with any
liberty or not, and thus, this Court should
not entertain the present petition.

5. Replying the same, Sri G.C.
Verma, learned counsel for petitioners
submits that petitioners are master of
their petition. The petitioners' institutions
are situated at District Maharajganj,
which falls within the jurisdiction of
High Court sitting at Allahabad while
State
Government
is
at
Lucknow,
therefore,
for
a
mandamus
to
the
respondent authorities, which are having
their office at Lucknow, cause of action
has to be treated as arising at both the
places and thus, being dominus litis, it is
the sole discretion of petitioners where
they desire to file their writ petition. In
support of his submissions, he has placed
reliance upon following cases:

(i) Sri Nasiruddin vs. State
Transport Appellate Tribunal (1975) 2
SCC 671;

(ii) U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill
Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow vs. State of
U.P. and others (1995) 4 SCC 738;

(iii) Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (2000) 7 SCC
640;

(iv) Rajendran Chingaravelu vs.
R.K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of
Income Tax and others (2010) 1 SCC 457;

(v) Nawal Kishore Sharma vs.
Union of India and others (2014) 9 SCC
329;

(vi) Nitya Nand Tiwari vs. State
of U.P. and others (1994) LCD 1181; and

(vii) Ashok Kumar Arora vs.
State of U.P. (Special Appeal No.285 of
2021) decided on 19.8.2021.

6.

Learned
Standing
Counsel,
opposing the writ petition, submits that
principles of dominus litis would not apply
in the present case. He places reliance upon
following cases:

(i) Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.
vs. Union of India and another (2004) 6
SCC 254; and

(ii) Krishna Veni Nagam vs.
Harish Nagam, (2017) 4 SCC 150.

7. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the record.

8. So far as judgments relied upon by
learned
counsel
for
petitioners
are
concerned, all of them are on the issue that
where jurisdiction lies at more than one
places, it is the discretion of petitioners
being master of proceedings to file a
870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition at a place of their choice. Suffice is
to refer to the judgment of Supreme Court
in
Sri
Nasiruddin
(supra).
Relevant
Paragraphs 24, 25, 37, 38 and 39 of the said
judgment read:

"24. The fourth question on which
the High Court expressed its opinion is on
the meaning of "cases arising in such areas
in Oudh". The High Court expressed the
following views. A distinction arises
between criminal cases on the one hand
and writ petitions under Article the other.
The contention based on Article 225 that
Lucknow Bench will not have jurisdiction
under Article 226 is wrong because the
jurisdiction of the High Court is not only
the jurisdiction exercisable before the
Constitution came into force but also the
jurisdiction which could be on the High
Court in future. The Lucknow Bench,
therefore, jurisdiction under Article 226.

25. Though the Lucknow Bench
can exercise jurisdiction under Articles
226, 227 and 228, there is limitation on
such jurisdiction as far as the Lucknow
Bench is concerned. The Lucknow Bench
will have jurisdiction under Article 226
only in cases where the right of the
petitioner arose first within the Oudh
areas. Where an original order passed
outside the Oudh areas has been reversed
or modified or confirmed at a place within
the Oudh areas it is not the place where the
ultimate or the appellate order is passed
that will attract jurisdiction of the Lucknow
Bench. In most cases where an appeal or
revision will lie to the State Government,
the order will be made at Lucknow. In all
such cases, if it be held that the place
where a case can be said to arise is where
the ultimate or appellate order is passed by
the authority, the Judges at Lucknow would
then have jurisdiction even though the
controversy originally arose and the
original order was made by an authority
outside the specified Oudh areas. In all
cases a writ petition filed in the High Court
would be a case arising at Lucknow. It is
on this reasoning that the High Court
strictly confined the jurisdiction of the
Lucknow Bench under Article 226 to the
right
which
the
petitioner
pursues
throughout the original proceedings, the
appellate proceedings and thereafter in the
High Court. The right of the petitioner is
the right which first arose and if the place
where the right first arose will be within
the Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench
will have jurisdiction.

37. The conclusion as well as the
reasoning of the High Court is incorrect. It
is unsound because the expression "cause
of action" in an application under Article
226 would be as the expression is
understood and if the cause of action arose
because of the appellate order or the
revisional order which came to be passed
at Lucknow then Lucknow would have
jurisdiction though the original order was
passed at a place outside the areas in
Oudh. It may be that the original order was
in favour of the person applying for a writ.
In such case an adverse appellate order
might be the cause of action. The
expression "cause of action" is wellknown. If the cause of action arises wholly
or in part at a place within the specified
Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have
jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises
wholly within the specified Oudh areas, it
is indisputable that the Lucknow Bench
would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a
matter. If the cause of action arises in part
within the specified areas in Oudh it would
be open to the litigant who is the dominus
litis to have his forum conveniens. The
litigant has the right to go to a court where
6 All. C/M Shri Paras Nath Anusuchit Prathmik Pathshala Thru. Its Manager & Ors. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
871
part of his cause of action arises. In such
cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant
chooses any particular court. The choice is
by reason of the jurisdiction of the court
being attracted by part of cause of action
arising within the jurisdiction of the court.
Similarly, if the cause of action can be said
to have arisen partly within specified areas
in Oudh and partly outside the specified
Oudh areas, the litigant will have the
choice to institute proceedings either at
Allahabad or Lucknow. The court will find
out in each case

38. To sum up. Our conclusions
are as follows. First, there is no permanent
seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The
seats at Allahabad and at Lucknow may be
changed in accordance with the provisions
of the Order. Second, the Chief Justice of
the High Court has no power to increase or
decrease the areas in Oudh from time to
time. The areas in Oudh have been
determined once by the Chief Justice and,
therefore, there is no scope for changing
the areas. Third, the Chief Justice has
power under the second proviso to para 14
of the Order to direct in his discretion that
any case or class of cases arising in Oudh
areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Any
case or class of cases are those which are
instituted at Lucknow. The interpretation
given by the High Court that the word
"heard" confers powers on the Chief
Justice to order that any case or class of
cases arising in Oudh areas shall be
instituted or filed at Allahabad, instead of
Lucknow is wrong. The word "heard"
means that cases which have already been
instituted or filed at Lucknow may in the
discretion of the Chief Justice under the
second proviso to para 14 of the Order be
directed to be heard at Allahabad. Fourth,
the expression "cause of action" with
regard to a civil matters means that it
should be left to the litigant to institute
cases at Lucknow Bench or at Allahabad
Bench according to the cause of action
arising wholly or in part within either of
the areas. If the cause of action arises
wholly within Oudh areas then the
Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction.
Similarly, if the cause of action arises
wholly outside the specified areas in Oudh
then Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If the
cause of action in part arises in the
specified Oudh areas and part of the cause
of action arises outside the specified areas,
it will be open to the litigant to frame the
case
appropriately
to
attract
the
jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at
Allahabad. Fifth, a criminal case arises
when the offence has been committed or
otherwise as provided in the Criminal
Procedure Code. That will attract the
jurisdiction of the Court at Allahabad or
Lucknow. In some cases depending on the
facts
and
the
provision
regarding
jurisdiction, it may arise in either place.

39. Applications under Article
226 will similarly lie either at Lucknow or
at Allahabad as the applicant will allege
that the whole of cause of action or part of
the cause of action arose at Lucknow
within the specified areas of Oudh or part
of the cause of action arose at a place
outside the specified Oudh areas."

9. Rest of the judgments relied upon
by learned counsel for petitioners also
follow the same principles. No doubt, it is
settled that when cause of action arises at
more
than
one
place,
it
is
the
plaintiff/petitioner, who has a discretion to
choose the place where he desires to file
petition. However, the said discretion
cannot be said to be absolute. Exception is
drawn to the same on the principles of
forum non conveniens.
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.
(supra), the Supreme Court while dealing
with the issue of cause of action, in Para 30
held:

"Forum conveniens

30. We must, however, remind
ourselves that even if a small part of cause
of action arises within the territorial
jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by
itself may not be considered to be a
determinative factor compelling the High
Court to decide the matter on merit. In
appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by
invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.
[See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir
Sawhney [AIR 1941 Cal 670 : ILR (1941) 1
Cal 490] , Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal
[(1945) 49 CWN 357 : AIR 1949 Cal 495] ,
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies
& Cold Storage (P) Ltd. [1997 CWN 122] ,
S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India [(1994) 1
CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union
of India [AIR 1994 Del 126]."

11. In Krishna Veni Nagam (supra),
the Supreme Court in Para 13 held:

"13. We have considered the
above suggestions. In this respect, we may
also refer to the doctrine of forum non
conveniens which can be applied in
matrimonial proceedings for advancing
interest of justice. Under the said doctrine,
the court exercises its inherent jurisdiction
to stay proceedings at a forum which is
considered not to be convenient and there
is any other forum which is considered to
be more convenient for the interest of all
the parties at the ends of justice. In Modi
Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket
Pte. Ltd. [Modi Entertainment Network v.
W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC
341] this Court observed : (SCC pp. 35657, para 19)

"19. In Spiliada Maritime case
[Spiliada Maritime Corpn. v. Cansulex
Ltd., (1986) 3 All ER 843 : 1987 AC 460 :
(1986) 3 WLR 972 (HL)] the House of
Lords laid down the following principle :
(All ER p. 844a)

'The
fundamental
principle
applicable to both the stay of English
proceedings on the ground that some other
forum was the appropriate forum and also
the grant of leave to serve proceedings out
of the jurisdiction was that the court would
choose that forum in which the case could
be tried more suitably for the interests of
all the parties and for the ends of
justice....'

The criteria to determine which
was a more appropriate forum, for the
purpose of ordering stay of the suit, the
court would look for that forum with which
the action had the most real and substantial
connection in terms of convenience or
expense, availability of witnesses, the law
governing the relevant transaction and
the places where the parties resided or
carried
on
business.
If
the
court
concluded that there was no other
available
forum
which
was
more
appropriate than the English court, it
would
normally
refuse
a
stay.
If,
however, the court concluded that there
was another forum which was prima facie
more
appropriate,
the
court
would
normally grant a stay unless there were
circumstances militating against a stay. It
was noted that as the dispute concerning
the contract in which the proper law was
English law, it meant that England was
the appropriate forum in which the case
could be more suitably tried."
6 All. C/M Shri Paras Nath Anusuchit Prathmik Pathshala Thru. Its Manager & Ors. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
873

(emphasis in original)

Though these observations have
been made in the context of granting antisuit injunction, the principle can be
followed in regulating the exercise of
jurisdiction of the court where proceedings
are instituted. In a civil proceeding, the
plaintiff is the dominus litis but if more
than one court has jurisdiction, court can
determine which is the convenient forum
and lay down conditions in the interest of
justice subject to which its jurisdiction may
be availed [Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v.
Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254, para
30] ." (emphasis added)

12. From the aforesaid judgments in
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) and
Krishna Veni Nagam (supra), Supreme
Court has held that plaintiff/petitioner alone
does not have exclusive discretion to
choose jurisdiction when the same lies at
multiple places. In appropriate cases, Court
can exercise its inherent jurisdiction and fix
jurisdiction taking into consideration the
convenience of parties, witnesses, Court
and any other relevant factors, which would
impact the proceedings.

13. In the present case, petitioners
could approach either High Court at
Allahabad or at Lucknow. In earlier three
proceedings, petitioners chose High Court
at Allahabad for filing their writ petitions
and contempt application and last petition
filed at Allahabad was withdrawn by them.
It is not clear as to under what
circumstances and with what liberty, if any,
said
petition
was
permitted
to
be
withdrawn.

14. The unique position with regard to
High Court Allahabad is that under Clause
14 of the United Provinces High Court
(Amalgamation) Order, 1948, the Chief
Justice while sitting at Lucknow can
transfer a writ petition from Lucknow to
Allahabad. However, neither under the
High Court Rules nor under the United
Provinces High Court (Amalgamation)
Order, 1948, the Chief Justice is having any
power to transfer a case from Allahabad to
Lucknow.

15. In the present case, this Court is
not
in
a
position
to
summon
the
files/records from Allahabad. The petitioners
have not filed details of prayers made in their
earlier petitions, withdrawal application filed
by them in Writ-C No.7120 of 2020 and
ground taken therein, and order passed in
earlier writ petition. In absence of the same,
this Court is unable to decide as to whether
withdrawal of earlier writ petition is in
circumstances in which present writ petition
can be filed or present writ petition would be
barred by withdrawal of earlier writ petition,
and without deciding the same, this Court
cannot proceed. Court is also unable to
peruse orders and pleadings of petitioners'
other two petitions.

16. This type of disputes are frequently
occurring before this Court. The difficulty
faced by the Court, in the aforesaid
circumstances, where a case cannot be
transferred from Allahabad to Lucknow
while they can be transferred from Lucknow
to Allahabad only when Chief Justice of High
Court sitting at Lucknow passes an order
under Clause 14 of the United Provinces
High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948,
creates unnecessary hurdle in disposal of
cases, if jurisdiction is changed from one
place to another by the parties to the dispute.
It needs to be solved.

17. Merely because petitioners have a
right to file writ petition before any Court
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of their choice either at Allahabad or
Lucknow, it does not give them a kangaroo
right to hop around jurisdiction at their
whims. It is not only their convenience,
which is to be looked into, but convenience
of all related is also relevant, including that
of Court. Facts of this case are a glaring
example of the same. The difficulty being
faced by this Court is created by petitioners
only.

18. The petitioners have a choice to
invoke jurisdiction of the Court either at
Allahabad or at Lucknow and once they
have exercised the said choice, parties
should restrict themselves to their initial
choice of forum while filing later petitions.
Hopping around forum would be highly
inconvenient to the working of the Court as
in the present case. Once petitioners choose
jurisdiction, out of many available, in
normal course, they should stick to the
same, unless they can explain reasons for
changing the same.

19. It was repeatedly put to learned
counsel for petitioners to explain as to why
after repeatedly choosing High Court at
Allahabad,
petitioners
have
chosen
Lucknow for filing present writ petition.
Learned counsel for petitioners only replied
that it is the discretion and choice of
petitioners and this Court cannot interfere
in the same. This Court is not satisfied with
the reply of learned counsel for petitioners.

20. In the given facts and circumstances
where it is not clear to this Court as to
whether primary question with regard to
maintainability is involved in view of
withdrawal of earlier writ petition, which
appears to be without any liberty, this Court
finds it appropriate to refuse to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction in permitting the
petitioners to maintain present writ petition at
Lucknow and finds Allahabad as appropriate
forum for this petition.

21. It was also offered to learned
counsel for petitioners if he would like to get
the matter listed before the Chief Justice
under Clause 14 of the United Provinces
High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 for
transfer of present petition to Allahabad.
Learned counsel for petitioners refused the
offer and again reiterated that it is petitioners'
right to choose jurisdiction and they cannot
be forced out of Lucknow.

22. Since this Court is not inclined to
entertain this writ petition at Lucknow,
therefore, present writ petition is dismissed. It
shall, however, be open for petitioners, in
case they so desire, to file a petition at
Allahabad.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 874
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 12616 of 2023

Tech. Mahindra Ltd., G.B. Nagar
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Noida
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Gunjan Jadwani, Sri Chandrika Patel, Sri
M.S. Vinayak, Sri Karunanidhi Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shekhar Srivastava

A. Labour Law - Termination - Principle of
natural justice - Application - No charge
sheet was supplied nor any disciplinary