Vijay Shridhar Panikar v. State Of Maharashtra And Another

22 wp.1836.15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2015 VIJAY SHRIDHAR PANIKAR

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb S. AGP for Respondent No.1 : Mrs.S.A.Dhumal.

Advocate for Respondents No.2 : Mr.Dande.

...

CORAM :

S. V. GANGAPURWALA and V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ.

DATE :

17th February, 2015.

P.C.:

.

Heard Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Mr.Dande, learned counsel raises a preliminary objection about the territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the order is passed at Mumbai. The Petitioner is transferred to Amravati. This Court would not have territorial jurisdiction.

Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court had directed the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner and the order impugned also refers to the judgment delivered by this Court. As such, this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. This Court had entertained the earlier writ petition as one of the challenge was also to the order of the Committee, which was within the jurisdiction of this Court. As such, part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Considering the fact that the present impugned order is passed at Mumbai, and thereafter, placing the Petitioner at Amravati, this Court

22 wp.1836.15.odt certainly would not have territorial jurisdiction. In light of the above, the writ petition is returned back to the Petitioner for presentation before the proper forum. No costs. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. [ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] ndm