Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5293/2010 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5293 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
SATPALSINGH
SAINI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
INDIAN
RAILWAYS RAILWAY BOARD THROUGH IT'S CHAIRMAN & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RK MISHRA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RAVI KARNAVAT for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 20/04/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Mr.R.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Ravi Karnavat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Mr.Ravi
Karnavat, learned counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the
petitioner was in service in Mumbai and he retired from Mumbai and no
cause of action has arisen in the State of Gujarat. Therefore, this
Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this
petition only on the ground that the petitioner is a resident of
Gujarat or that he has made the representation from Gujarat State
after filing of the petition.
3. Merely
because the petitioner after filing of the writ petition, made some
representation to the Central Government or to the authorities in
Mumbai, would not confer any territorial jurisdiction to challenge
the order in Gujarat as the petitioner was in service in Mumbai. He
being a resident of Gujarat does not confer any territorial
jurisdiction to challenge the order rejecting the representation or
claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion. This petition is
dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, with a liberty to the
petitioner to approach the appropriate legal Forum in State of
Maharashtra.
(V.M.Sahai,
J.)
Sreeram. (G.B.Shah,
J.)
Top