Ajay Kumar v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18233 of 2019 ====================================================== Ajay Kumar Son of Goelal Singh Resident of Village- East Side a Pond Jajwara, Pawai, Police Station Suryagraha, District- Lakhisarai. At present Posted at 532, SS and T C (GREF)/764 T F (Project) Swastik, Near Teen Bath More, P.O. and P.S.- Bhakthnagar Distt- Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through the Secretary Border, Road Development Board, Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence B Wing, 4th Floor, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi- 110010.

2.

The Director General, Boarder Roads, Organisation, Seema Sadak Bhawan, Ring Road, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi 110010.

3.

The Chief Engineer, Project Swastik, Gangtok (Sikkim) C/o 99 APO, Pin 931717.

4.

The Commander, 764 Border Raod Task Force, Kalimpong (West Bengal), C/o 99APO Pin 930764.

5.

The Record Office, GREF Digha Camp Pune-15.

6.

The Senior Record Officer, GREF Records Digi Camp Pune 41101 7.

The Officer Commanding 532 SS and TC (GREF) C/o 99 APO Pin 930532 at Siliguri (West Bengal).

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rabindra Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.S.D.Sanjay (ASG) with Mrs. Kanak Verma, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-09-2019 Mr. S. D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has raised a preliminary objection over maintainability of the writ application before this Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. He appears to be correct in his submission since the order dated 25.01.2019, which is impugned in the writ application was issued from Pune office of

Patna High Court CWJC No.18233 of 2019(2) dt.18-09-2019 2/2 General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF). No cause of action appears to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court nor office of any of the respondents is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

2. This application thus, cannot be maintained and is, accordingly, dismissed.

3. Since this writ application is being dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, let the writ petition be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner on his request. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) arun/- U