K S Jamestin v. The Union of India and The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **TUESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WA NO. 1707 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19080/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF** **KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** K S JAMESTIN, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.LATE KS. ZACHARIAS, "SAN MARIA", K C ABRAHAM MASTER ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN - 682036 BY ADVS. NAZRIN BANU REKHA AGARWAL JOSEPH V. GREGORY P.JAYABAL MENON ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 110001 2 THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED DEENDAYAL URJA BHAWAN, 5, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI- REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 110070 BY ADVS. SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR) **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.1707 of of 2022 2 **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ ------------------------------------------------------------------** WA No.1707 of 2022 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of November, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Mohammed Nias.C.P.,J This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in WP(C)No.19080 of 2022 seeking a direction to the respondents to release the Performance Related Pay (PRP) for the year 20132014, 2014-2015 (4 months) and also claiming the long term services reward momento with compound interest thereon. In the said writ petition, a statement of preliminary objection dated 22.8.2022 was filed on behalf of the second respondent contending that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to consider the the petition. The petitioner had filed a reply affidavit to the preliminary objection filed on behalf of the second respondent. 2. The learned single Judge by the order impugned found that the claim with regard to the release of amounts had been specifically declined by Ext.P3 communication and that the claim itself was with regard to his employment with the second WA No.1707 of of 2022 3 respondent at New Delhi and the rejection by Ext.P3 was also communicated to the petitioner at New Delhi. Learned singe Judge after noticing the judgments cited on either side held that the writ petition filed before this Court was not maintainable. The mere fact that the petitioner had been sending representations from Kerala or had received communications in Kerala was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court going by the binding decisions of the Apex Court as well as the Full bench of this Court. Holding so, the writ petition was dismissed upholding the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the second respondent. 3. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the learned single Judge is clearly wrong, as according to him the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in **Shanti Devi v. Union of India and others** [(2020) 10 SCC 766] as he was receiving the pension at Cochin and that the communications rejecting his claims were also received in Cochin. He also relied on the judgment in **Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and others** [(2014) 9 SCC 329] . The learned counsel argues that even if a part of cause of action arises in Cochin, where he is currently residing, this Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. WA No.1707 of of 2022 4 4. The learned counsel for the second respondent however submits that there is no part of cause of action arising in Cochin for the petitioner to maintain a writ petition before this Court. He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and another** [(2004) 6 SCC 254] as well as the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in **The Registrar v. K.G.Viswanathan** (ILR 2014 (4) Kerala 76] to support his contention. 5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 6. We notice that the decision of the respondent to withhold the incentives now claimed by the petitioner was communicated to him on 25.09.2014 while he was at New Delhi and he was residing at the Corporation's accommodation in New Delhi till 25.11.2014, after his superannuation on 31.7.2014. The notice seeking his explanation was also served on 31.7.2014 and the petitioner had availed all the post retirement facilities from New Delhi. The withholding of the claims made by the petitioner has attained finality in New Delhi and the acts of commission and WA No.1707 of of 2022 5 omissions attributed to the petitioner were those in relation to discharge of his duties and functions in connection with his employment with the 2[nd] respondent at New Delhi. The seat of the second respondent and the Ministry that passed the order are also away from the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In short, none of the impugned actions had taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court and on the mere fact that some of the communications were received in Cochin will not clothe this Court with the power to consider the writ petition. None of the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action constitute a cause so as to empower this Court to decide the dispute. This Court had considered a almost similar facts in the decision reported in **Anand Anoop v. Union of India** [2014 (3) KLT 171] wherein after referring to the earlier decisions in **Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu** [(1994) 4 SCC 711], **Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commandant** [1999 (3) KLT 629 (FB)], **Union of India and others v. Adani Exports Ltd. and another** [(2002) 1 SCC 567] and **Kusum Ingots & Alloys Limited v. Union of India** [(2004) 6 SCC 254] held that the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. With respect to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered WA No.1707 of of 2022 6 by the judgment in **Shanti Devi** (Supra), it has to be noted that the respondents in that case had clearly admitted that a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court, but the objection was on the principle of forum conveniens and therefore the writ petition could not have been entertained at Patna and ought to have been prosecuted in Jharkhand High Court. In such a case where admittedly part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction, of that court cannot be held to be barred. It is apart from the said fact that the Supreme Court held that the stoppage of pension which was being drawn at his native place Dharbhanga for several years did give a cause of action for filing a writ petition in the Patna High Court. On these facts the said decision is clearly distinguishable. Further in the said judgment, Supreme Court clearly warned the likelihood of misuse against transgressing into the jurisdiction of other high courts merely on the ground of some insignificant event connected with the cause of action taking place within the territorial limits of the high court to which the litigant approaches at his own choice. We do not find anything in the judgment in **Shanti Devi** (supra) in support of the petitioner's case. WA No.1707 of of 2022 7 8. A similar situation as in the present case was considered by this Court in the judgment reported in **Anand Anoop v. Union of India** [2004(3)KLT 171] where an application was made for selection to the MBBS course from Telicherry, Kerala and the hallticket for the examination was also received by him at Telicherry. His application before the authorities, for nomination to the Central Pool was also preferred from Telicherry. The non communication of any decision, as also the effect of any adverse decision against him, would affect his right at Telicherry were he resides. On these contentions, a writ petition was filed before this Court. After considering the judgment in **Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & others** [(1994) 4 SCC 711] , **Union of India and others v. Adani Exports Ltd. and another** [(2002) 1 SCC 567] and **Kusum Ingots & Alloys Limited v. Union of India** [(2004) 6 SCC 254] and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in **Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commandant** [1999 (3) KLT 629 (FB)], and clearly finding the distinction between 'a right of action' and a 'cause of action', the said plea of the litigant that he can maintain a writ petition before this Court was rejected. 9. A Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in **K.G.Viswanathan** (supra) also surveyed most of the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and held that in cases where no WA No.1707 of of 2022 8 part of the cause of action arises, cases cannot be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. With respect to the decision in **Nawal Kishore Sharma** (supra) cited on behalf of the appellant, the Supreme Court, on the principles of acquiescence held that the respondents had participated in the writ proceedings without raising objection as to territorial jurisdiction at the time passing of the interim order and also holding that part of the cause of action did arise within the jurisdiction of the High Court where the case was filed, proceeded to consider the question of jurisdiction. The said decision is in no way helpful to advance the case of the appellant herein. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the the communications were received by him at Cochin will not clothe him the right to file the writ petition before this Court going by the principles in all the judgments cited above. 10. In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that his legal right was infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the high court jurisdiction. In the case on hand, on the basis of the facts already stated above, we find that no part of the cause of action much less any integral part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to maintain a writ petition. It is well recognised that there is a WA No.1707 of of 2022 9 distinction between cause of action and right of action. In American Jurisprudence 2[nd] Edition Vol.I at page 541 it is stated as follows:- “Although the courts sometimes confuse the term 'cause of action' and 'right of action' and state that right of action at law arises from the existence of a primary right in the plaintiff and the invasion of that right by some delict on the part of the defendant, in a legal sense, these terms are not synonymous or interchangeable. A right of action is the right to presently enforce a cause of action – a remedial right affording redress for the infringement of legal right belonging to some definite person, a cause of action is the operative facts which give rise to such right of action. Right of action does not arise until the performance of conditions precedent to the action and may be taken away by the running of the statute of limitation, through an estoppel, or by other circumstances which do not affect the cause of action. There may be several rights of action and one cause of action and rights may accrue at different times from the same cause.” The judgments cited on behalf of the appellant all are clearly distinguishable. It is trite that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of the case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically follows. Courts will not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. We are in complete agreement with the findings of the learned single Judge, WA No.1707 of of 2022 10 that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court as no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. In that view of the matter we find that no interference is warranted with the judgment under appeal. Writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. ## **Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE** **Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE** dlk 22.11.2022