← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/5430/2016dismissed

G D Rohtas v. Union Of India And ANR

2023-11-24Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 



CWP No.5430 of 2016(O&M) Date of Decision:24.11.2023 G D Rohtas ....Petitioner vs.

Union of India and another ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr. K.S.Jawandah, Advocate for Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arun Gosain, Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 13.01.2014 (Annexure-6) whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 25.06.2014 (Annexure P-8) whereby revision petition has been dismissed.

2.

It is undisputed fact that neither the alleged offence which was foundation of punishment was committed within jurisdiction of this Court nor any authority passed any order within jurisdiction of this Court. 3.

The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court on the sole ground that petitioner is a resident of State of Haryana. In the pleadings, the petitioner has pleaded that writ is maintainable before this Court because petitioner is a resident of State of Haryana and during the PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.11.24 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP No.5430 of 2016(O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:149909 course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to justify invoking of jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that communication of impugned orders took place within jurisdiction of this Court. 4.

This Court vide order dated 26.07.2023 in CWP No. 8829 of 2021, Manoj Kumar vs. Union of India and others has held that mere communication of impugned order does not create cause for territorial jurisdiction.

5.

In the wake of aforesaid facts and submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, this Court finds that the present petition is not maintainable on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being not maintainable. The petitioner is free to pursue his remedies in a Court of competent jurisdiction. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 24.11.2023 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.11.24 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment