ORDER
A.N. Varma, J.
1. The petitioner who was a Sepoy In the Indian Army having been declared a deserter, was tried by the Summary Court Martial at Bangalore. He having been found guilty of desertion, was dismissed from service vide order dated 18.12.1999 passed by the Commandant Officer, Headquarters, A.S.C. Wing (South), Bangalore, against the order of his dismissal he preferred a statutory complaint before the GOC-In-C, Southern Command, with a copy to the Chief of the Army. The said appeal was dismissed by the GOC-In-C, Southern Command at Pune vide its order dated 8.5.2000.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the Additional Standing Counsel, Central Government that as no part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the instant writ petition before this Court is not maintainable. In support of his argument the learned standing counsel placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision rendered by this Court in Ex. Sepoy (Driver/M.T.) Chabi Nath v. Union of India and Ors., 1999 Military Law Journal 24.
3. In opposition the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. N. Mishra, submitted that in view of the fact that statutory complaint had been made to GOC-In-C, Southern Command with a copy to the Chief of the Army Staff, therefore, he has a right to file a writ petition against the impugned orders any where in India. In this connection he also placed reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court in Kailash Nath Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors. 2002 (1) AWC 673: 2002 (1) LBESR 367 (All). On the strength of the said decision he submits that against the decision taken by the Chief of Army Staff, a writ petition can be filed anywhere in India.
4. In the case of Ex. Sepoy (Driver/M.T.) Chabi Nath (supra), the appellant had been tried by the Summary Court Martial at Jammu, The finding and sentence were confirmed at Jammu and the same was also communicated to him at Jammu. While undergoing life imprisonment at Allahabad, he made a representation under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, the decision upon which was also communicated to him at Allahabad. The Division Bench relying upon various decisions rendered by the Apex Court as well as by this Court, held that mere communicating the decision rendered by the authority on a representation under Section 164(2) of the Army Act would not confer jurisdiction and the High Court at Allahabad in such circumstances could not have any jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. In the case of Kailash Nath Tewari (supra), the writ petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction by the learned single Judge, against which a Special Appeal was filed wherein the order passed by learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition for want of jurisdiction was set aside and the matter was directed to be heard on merit. From the perusal of the said decision the facts and circumstances of the said case are not borne out. It is not decipherable as to in what circumstances the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge was set aside.
6. In the case at hand Annexure- 1, which is an order dismissing the petitioner from service is said to have been communicated to him at Pratapgarh. In view of the proposition as laid down in re Ex. Sepoy (Driver/M.T.) Chabi Nath’s case, mere communication of the order of dismissal at Pratapgarh would not confer jurisdiction on this Court. No part of cause of action originated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. As has already been indicated, the petitioner was tried by the Summary Court Martial at Bangalore, the statutory complaint that he preferred before the GOC-In-C, Southern Command was also decided by the said authority at Pune. The Chief of Army Staff did not dwell and adjudicate upon the said complaint of the petitioner. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that no part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
7. In view of what has been said hereinabove the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court and as such is hereby dismissed.