# Vikram Singh Kathait & others v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 1006
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-10-29
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52241 of 2007
- **Bench:** S. Rafat Alam, Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vikram-singh-kathait-others-v-union-of-india-and-others-40981
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Territorial
Jurisdiction-writ petition against the
order passed by Central Administrative
Tribunal Allahabad-petitioner working in
Central
School,
in
Uttarakhand-the
judgment
passed
by
High
Court,
Allahabad-not
binding
upon
the
authorities of Uttarakhand-held-petition
not maintainable at Allahabad-want of
jurisdiction.

Held: Para 8

In our view, the preliminary objection
with respect to territorial jurisdiction is
squarely covered by the Apex Court
decision in Ambica Industries (Supra)
and has to be sustained. The law laid
down in Jamshed N. Guzdar (Supra) was
wholly
on
different
facts
and
circumstances and has no relevance to
the issue involved in the present writ
petition. Accordingly, we uphold the
preliminary objection and dismiss the
writ
petition
for
lack
of
territorial
jurisdiction since, in our view, the
petitioner can file writ petition before
the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court and
not in Allahabad High Court. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed for
want of territorial jurisdiction. No order
as to costs.
Case law discussed:
1975 (2) SCC-671, AIR 1976 SC-331, 2004 (6)
SCC-254, 1994 ELT 264, 2000 (123) ELT-471,
2005 SCC-591, 2007 SCC (6)-769

## Text

1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
by him. However, for perusal and
necessary information the Registry of this
Court is directed to place a copy of our
decision upon the aforesaid first appeals
by consolidating them together and we
expect that this Court while hearing the
appeals would not be influenced by our
observations made in this judgement,
however, it can be taken as information
regarding the facts stated therein. The
office is directed to list the aforesaid
appeals before appropriate court forthwith
after placing the copy of this order on the
files of aforesaid appeals.

71. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, the writ petition succeeds
and allowed to the extent indicated herein
before.

72. There shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.10.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S. RAFAT ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52241 of 2007

Vikram Singh Kathait & others ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
H.R. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N.P. Singh

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Territorial
Jurisdiction-writ petition against the
order passed by Central Administrative
Tribunal Allahabad-petitioner working in
Central
School,
in
Uttarakhand-the
judgment
passed
by
High
Court,
Allahabad-not
binding
upon
the
authorities of Uttarakhand-held-petition
not maintainable at Allahabad-want of
jurisdiction.

Held: Para 8

In our view, the preliminary objection
with respect to territorial jurisdiction is
squarely covered by the Apex Court
decision in Ambica Industries (Supra)
and has to be sustained. The law laid
down in Jamshed N. Guzdar (Supra) was
wholly
on
different
facts
and
circumstances and has no relevance to
the issue involved in the present writ
petition. Accordingly, we uphold the
preliminary objection and dismiss the
writ
petition
for
lack
of
territorial
jurisdiction since, in our view, the
petitioner can file writ petition before
the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court and
not in Allahabad High Court. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed for
want of territorial jurisdiction. No order
as to costs.
Case law discussed:
1975 (2) SCC-671, AIR 1976 SC-331, 2004 (6)
SCC-254, 1994 ELT 264, 2000 (123) ELT-471,
2005 SCC-591, 2007 SCC (6)-769

(Delivered by Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.)

1. Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.P.
Singh, learned counsel appearing for
respondents no. 3 to 6.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the
order of Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the
"Tribunal") dated 12.10.2007 whereby the
Original Application has been rejected.

3. Sri N.P. Singh, learned counsel
appearing for respondents no. 3 to 6 has
raised a preliminary objection about the
maintainability of the writ petition stating
3 All] Vikram Singh Kathait and others V. Union of India and others
1007
that the entire cause of action has initiated
in the State of Uttarakhand and, therefore,
this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction and
placed reliance on the Apex Court's
judgment in Ambica Industries Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise 2007
(6) SCC 769.

4. Sri Mishra, on the contrary
submitted that since the Tribunal at
Allahabad has passed the judgment
impugned in this writ petition, therefore,
part of cause of action has arisen in the
State of Uttar Pradesh and the writ
petition in this Court is maintainable and
placed reliance on the Apex Court's
judgment in Jamshed N. Guzdar Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, 2005
SCC 591.

5. Having considered the rival
submissions, in our view, the preliminary
objection raised by the learned counsel for
the respondents deserve to be sustained. It
is
true
that
the
Tribunal
exercise
jurisdiction over two states i.e. State of
Uttar Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand.
All the petitioners are appointed in
Kendriya Vidyalaya. New Tehri Town,
Uttarakhand i.e. within the State of
Uttarakhand.
Since
the
Tribunal
at
Allahabad exercise jurisdiction in respect
of both the States, therefore, the Original
Application
under
Section
19
of
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 was
filed at Allahabad. In the circumstances,
mere judgment of Tribunal at Allahabad,
in our view, would not give rise to a cause
of action, partly or wholly, to file a writ
petition in Allahabad High Court. This
issue has been considered by the Apex
Court in Ambica Industries (Supra) and
para 13 and 14 of the judgment may be
reproduced as under:-

"13.
The
Tribunal,
as
noticed
hereinbefore, exercises jurisdiction over
all the three States. In all the three States
there are High Courts. In the event, the
aggrieved person is treated to be the
domius litis, as a result whereof, he elects
to file the appeal before one or the other
High Court, the decision of the High
Court shall be binding only on the
authorities
which
are
within
its
jurisdiction. It will only be of persuasive
value on the authorities functioning under
a different jurisdiction. If the binding
authority of a High Court does not extend
beyond its territorial jurisdiction and the
decision of one High Court would not be
binding precedent for other High Courts
or
courts
or
tribunals
outside
its
territorial jurisdiction, some sort of
judicial anarchy shall come into play. An
assessee,
affected
by
an
order
of
assessment made at Bombay, may invoke
the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High
Court to take advantage of the law laid
down by it and which might suit him and
thus he would be able to successfully
evade the law laid down by the High
Court at Bombay.
14. Furthermore, when an appeal is
provided under a statute, Parliament must
have thought of one High Court. It is a
different matter that by way of necessity, a
tribunal may have to exercise jurisdiction
over several States but it does not appeal
to any reason that Parliament intended,
despite providing for an appeal before the
High Court, that appeals may be filed
before different High Courts at the sweet
will of the party aggrieved by the decision
of the tribunal."

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also
approved the judgments of Delhi High
Court in Suraj Woolen Mills Vs.
Collector of Customs, 2000 (123) ELT
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
471 wherein Hon'ble Lahoti, J., as His
Lordship then was, had also taken the
same view and the said decision of
Hon'ble Delhi High Court was followed
by Division Bench of Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in Bombay Snuff (P) Ltd.
Vs. Union of India, 2006 (194) ELT 264.
Both the judgements of Hon'ble Delhi
High Court and Hon'ble Bombay High
Court have been affirmed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ambica Industries
(Supra). Moreover, concept of part of
cause of action as laid down in
Nasiruddin Vs. STAT, 1975 (2) SCC
671:AIR 1976 SC 331 and Kusum
Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of
India, 2004 (6) SCC 254, which was
relied upon in order to contend that the
jurisdiction would lie in the High Court
within
whose
territorial
jurisdiction
Tribunal has decided the matter, has also
been considered and distinguished in para
30 in Ambica Industries (Supra).

7. What has been observed by the
Apex Court in para 30 of the judgment in
Ambica Industries (Supra) squarely
apply to the present case also. Here also if
it is held that the petitioners can elect to
file writ petition either before Allahabad
High Court or Uttarakhand High Court,
that may likely to result in conflicting
judgements besides the fact that the
judgment of Allahabad High Court may
not be binding on the authorities who are
outside the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court.

8. In our view, the preliminary
objection
with
respect to
territorial
jurisdiction is squarely covered by the
Apex
Court
decision
in
Ambica
Industries (Supra) and has to be
sustained. The law laid down in Jamshed
N. Guzdar (Supra) was wholly on
different facts and circumstances and has
no relevance to the issue involved in the
present writ petition. Accordingly, we
uphold the preliminary objection and
dismiss the writ petition for lack of
territorial jurisdiction since, in our view,
the petitioner can file writ petition before
the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court and
not in Allahabad High Court. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed for want
of territorial jurisdiction. No order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.11.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11336 of 2006

Vijay Soren

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shyamal Narain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Cancellation
of
Admission-petitioner
applied as S.T. candidate-at the time of
counseling
produced
the
original
certificate-allowed to persue 5 years
M.B.B.S.
course-cancellation
of
admission on the ground that petition is
not S.T. candidate particularly when the
father of petitioner-working as S.T.
candidate with central Government.

Held: Para 13

The further important factor of this case
that the petitioner was admitted to the
Course of five years in the year 2002 but