http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1736 of 2008

PETITIONER: Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors

RESPONDENT: Kalyan Banerjee

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/03/2008

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        1736 OF 2008 [Arising out of  SLP (Civil) No. 7375 of 2006]

S.B. SINHA, J :          1.      Leave granted. 2.      Respondent was an employee of Eastern Coal Fields Limited,  Appellant No. 1 herein in the Mugma Area, in the district of Dhanbad,  Jharkhand.  The General Manager of the area, whose office is also situated at  Mugma was his appointing and disciplinary authority.  The services of the  respondent were terminated at Mugma.  He filed a writ application before  the Calcutta High Court.  As he was serving in the Mugma Area and the  office of the General Manager was situated at Mugma which is in the State  of Jharkhand, a preliminary objection was raised in regard to the jurisdiction  of the Calcutta High Court.  In support of the said objection, reliance was  placed upon a decision of a learned Single Judge in N.N. Singh v. Coal India  Limited [C.O. No. 5869 (W) of 1994].   3.      The learned Single Judge, however, disagreed with the said view and  referred the matter to the Division Bench.  The Division Bench by a  judgment and order dated 26.03.2003 opined that the Calcutta High Court  had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said writ petition stating:

"\005In this case the Division Bench relying on an  observation of the learned Single Judge held that  since the registered office of Eastern Coalfields  Ltd. is situated at Sanctoria, Burdwan within the  territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court which  is a necessary party and also the order of approval  for dismissal was ultimately obtained from the  Director, Personnel of the Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,  whose office is at the said registered office, the  writ petition can be maintained before the Calcutta  High Court.  Therefore, this case was essentially  decided on facts, but there is no such averments in  the petition that the order of termination, passed by  the General Manager, Badjna Colliery, Mugma  Area, Dhanbad had obtained any prior approval  from the head office at Calcutta.  Therefore, this  decision of the Division Bench of this Court does  not held the writ petitioner/ respondent in this case.         As per the three Apex Court decisions,  referred to above, cause of action is decisive of the  matter for acquiring territorial jurisdiction to  decide the matter. Simply because the head office  of the company is at Calcutta is not decisive of the  matter as held in the case of Oil & Natural Gas

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu (supra)  because that would not give a cause of action to  the party.  Cause of action is a bundle of facts  which decides the territorial jurisdiction of the  Court, if any of the cause of action has arisen to  the party within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High  Court then the High Court at Calcutta will have  jurisdiction to decide the matter.  Simply because a  head office of the company is within the territorial  limits of the Calcutta High Court, that will not give  jurisdiction to the Calcutta High Court unless  cause of action arises within the territorial  jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court."

4.      A review application was filed thereagainst.  By reason of the  impugned judgment dated 25.11.2005, the said review application has been  allowed holding that the Division Bench had not taken into consideration  two other decisions of the Division Benches of the said Court, viz., Ram  Brich Muchi v. Coal India Limited [A.P.O.T. No. 343 of 2002] and Eastern  Coal Fields Ltd. v. Khagen Bouri & Ors. [2002 (1) C.L.R. 884].  It was  furthermore opined:

"As provided in the Companies Act, a company is  a body corporate and its registered office should be  deemed to be its site for the purpose of all  litigations.  The law is equally settled that an  employee challenging an order of dismissal cannot  get an effective order unless the employer is made  party to the litigation and as such, in this case, the  Eastern Coal Fields Limited having its registered  office in the district of Burdwan is a necessary  party and if the Court proposed to give relief to the  writ petitioner, specific direction of reinstatement  must be given to the employer to be carried out  through its appropriate officers.  As provided in  Article 226(1) of the constitution of India, even if  the cause of action arises outside the territorial  limit of High Court, such High Court can entertain  a writ application if the person sought to be bound  by the order of the Court is stationed within the  territorial limit.  Article 226(2) is an additional  provision subsequently incorporated by way of  amendment enabling a High Court to issue writ  even in cases where the respondents are  functioning beyond its territorial limit if the cause  of action has arisen fully or in part within its  territorial limit.

Once it is held that Article 226(1) is clearly  applicable, there is no necessity of invoking  Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.  From  the order sought to be reviewed, we find that  Division Bench confined its attention to the cause  of action of the present writ application but totally  ignored the fact that the employer, the Government  company, has its registered office within the  district of Burdwan and consequently the question  whether cause of action had really arisen within  the territorial limit of this Court was immaterial."

 5.      Mr. Anip Sachthey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant, submitted that it is not a case where sanction of the corporate  office or head office was required to be taken.  The entire cause of action

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

having arisen within the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court, the  Calcutta High Court could not have exercised any jurisdiction in the matter.

6.      The jurisdiction to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus is  conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India.  Article 226(2), however, provides that if cause of action had arisen in  more than one court, any of the courts where part of cause of action arises  will have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 7.      ’Cause of action’, for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution  of India, for all intent and purport, must be assigned the same meaning as  envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.  It means a  bundle of facts which are required to be proved.  The entire bundle of facts  pleaded, however, need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary  to be proved is material facts whereupon a writ petition can be allowed.   

       The question to some extent was considered by a Three-Judge Bench  of this Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Another  [(2004) 6 SCC 254] stating:

"18. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must  have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be  granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with  the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise  to a cause of action which would confer  jurisdiction on the Court."  

       As regards the question as to whether situs of office of the appellant  would be relevant, this Court noticed decisions of this Court in Nasiruddin v.  State Transport Appellate Tribunal [AIR 1976 SC 331] and U.P. Rashtriya  Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and others [(1995)  4 SCC 738] to hold:

"26. The view taken by this Court in U.P.  Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad  that the  situs of issue of an order or notification by the  Governmen t would come within the meaning of  the expression "cases arising" in clause 14 of the  (Amalgamation) Order is not a correct view of law  for the reason hereafter stated and to that extent the  said decision is overruled. In fact, a legislation, it  is trite, is not confined to a statute enacted by  Parliament or the legislature of a State, which  would include delegated legislation and  subordinate legislation or an executive order made  by the Union of India, State or any other statutory  authority. In a case where the field is not covered  by any statutory rule, executive instructions issued  in this behalf shall also come within the purview  thereof. Situs of office of Parliament, legislature of  a State or authorities empowered to make  subordinate legislation would not by itself  constitute any cause of action or cases arising. In  other words, framing of a statute, statutory rule or  issue of an executive order or instruction would  not confer jurisdiction upon a court only because  of the situs of the office of the maker thereof.   27. When an order, however, is passed by a court  or tribunal or an executive authority whether under  provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause  of action arises at that place. Even in a given case,  when the original authority is constituted at one  place and the appellate authority is constituted at  another, a writ petition would be maintainable at  both the places. In other words, as order of the  appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the  High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate  having regard to the fact that the order of the  appellate authority is also required to be set aside  and as the order of the original authority merges  with that of the appellate authority."  

8.      Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) has been followed by this Court  in Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and Others [(2006) 3  SCC 658] stating: "26. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of  India 14 a three-Judge Bench of this Court clearly  held that with a view to determine the jurisdiction  of one High Court vis--vis the other the facts  pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on  the basis whereof a prayer can be made and the  facts which have nothing to do therewith cannot  give rise to a cause of action to invoke the  jurisdiction of a court. In that case it was clearly  held that only because the High Court within  whose jurisdiction a legislation is passed, it would  not have the sole territorial jurisdiction but all the  High Courts where cause of action arises, will  have jurisdiction\005"    9.       In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Another [(2006) 6  SCC 207], this Court held: "12. The expression "cause of action" has acquired  a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense  "cause of action" means the circumstances forming  the infraction of the right or the immediate  occasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it  means the necessary conditions for the  maintenance of the suit, including not only the  infraction of the right, but also the infraction  coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, as  noted above, the expression means every fact,  which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to  prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to  the judgment of the court. Every fact, which is  necessary to be proved, as distinguished from  every piece of evidence, which is necessary to  prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action".  (See Rajasthan High Court Advocates’ Assn. v.  Union of India)"  

10.     In Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recuirt) and Others v.  State of U.P. and Others [(2006) 10 SCC 346], this Court held: "44. The second impugned order dated 12-4-2004  is further vitiated for the following reasons:  ( a ) Forum .\027The seniority list under challenge in  the second writ petition was the seniority list of the  Uttaranchal State Government of 2002 and such  challenge could not have been made before the  Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.   ( b ) Parties .\027None of the direct recruits who  would be directly affected by the order were made  parties to the writ petition. Therefore the High  Court did not have the benefit of competing  arguments in the matter. Even though, the  Principal Secretary of the State of Uttaranchal was  made a party, the said party was never served. The  only respondent which was heard was the State of  U.P. which had no stake in the matter at all since  all of the writ petitioners before the Lucknow  Bench of the Allahabad High Court were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

employees of the State of Uttaranchal on the  relevant date. It is, therefore, evident that the  relevant material was not placed before the  Allahabad High Court for the purpose of deciding  the writ petition. Accordingly, the permission had  to be taken from this Court by the present  appellants to prefer the SLPs."  

       These directions are authorities for the proposition that only that court  will have jurisdiction within which, the entire cause of action had arisen.  In  this case, no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the  Calcutta High Court. 11.     In view of the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High  Court that the entire cause of action arose in Mugma Area within the State of  Jharkhand, we are of the opinion that only because the Head Office of the  appellant \026 company was situated in the State of West Bengal, the same by  itself will not confer any jurisdiction upon the Calcutta High Court,  particularly when the Head Office had nothing to do with the order of  punishment passed against the respondent.   

12.     The appeal is allowed accordingly.  No costs.