← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/19208/2018disposed

Madan Lal v. The Food Corporation Of India Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director And ORS

2019-07-12Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19208 of 2018 ====================================================== Madan Lal S/O Latge Murari Lal Resident of Mohalla Tarwanna Road Soth of Railway Colony Digha Ghat Danapur Khagarul P.s. ........ Distt. Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Food Corporation Of India Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, 15-20 Barakhambha Lan New Delhi.

2. Executive Director (East Zone), Food Corporation of India 10-A Middleton Row Kolkata-71.

3. General Manager (Regional Office), Food Corporation of India, 6, Royd Street Kolkata.

4. The Area Manager Food Corporation of India, District Office at M.J.N. Road Post + Dist. Cooch Behar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar No-1, Adv.

Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Prabhakar Tekriwal, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-07-2019 Heard learned cunsel for the parties.

Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India, has raised an objection that this writ application is not maintainable on account of territorial jurisdiction as the petitioner was an employee posted within the territorial jurisdiction of West Bengal, has superannuated from there itself and, thereafter, he has filed application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act which was allowed and he has raised a grievance with regard to certain portion of the order.

Learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India is

Patna High Court CWJC No.19208 of 2018(2) dt.12-07-2019 2/2 correct. No cause of action or part thereof has arisen in the State of Bihar.

In that view of the matter, this writ application is dismissed, as not maintainable.

The petitioner, if so advised, may take any legal remedy as is available to him in law.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- U