T. Jacob v. Inspector General of Police (Personal), Office of the Director General, CRPF Headquarters, Block No. 1, C.G.O Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003; Special Director General of Police, Southern Sector CRPF; Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, Kerala Sector Headquarters, CRPF, Bengaluru, Karnataka; Office of the DIGP Group Centre, CRPF, Pallipuram, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695316

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 27588 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **T. JACOB AGED 57 YEARS S/O. LATE MR. THANU, RESIDING AT JANISH NIVAS, NEAR CRPF CAMP SUNTEC ROAD, KARAMOOD KOITHOORKONAM POST, TRIVANDRUM KERALA 695 584** **BY ADVS. PAUL JACOB (P) SHERU JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE(PERSONAL)**| |---|---| ||**OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF HEADQUARTERS, BLOCK NO.**| ||**1, C.G.O COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 003**| |**2**|**SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,**| ||**SOUTHERN SECTOR HQR, CRPF, ROAD NO.10-C, NEW MLA/MPS COLONY,**| ||**GAYATRI HILLS, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500033.**| |**3**|**THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,**| ||**KARNATAKA, KERALA SECTOR HEADQUARTERS, CRPF, BENGALURU,**| ||**KARNATAKA.**| |**4**|**OFFICE OF THE DIGP**| ||**GROUP CENTRE, CRPF, PALLIPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA**| ||**695 316**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**S.MANU, ASGI**| ||**N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI, CGC**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO. 27588 OF 2021 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 01[st] day of April, 2022** The petitioner is an Officer in the CRPF hailing from Kerala and presently posted at Belgaum. He had sought transfer to his home State, relying on paragraph (6) of the Standing Order extracted hereunder. “ _Home Zone/Home State Posting of Personnel who have Completed 20 Years Service but have not availed it so far -_ _Personnel who have completed 20 years of service but have not availed home zone or home state/choice posting will be transferred to their home States to the extent possible by the SDG/ADG Zones after ascertaining 3 choices by way of intersector transfer within Adm Zones. Those who cannot be posted to home States can be posted near to their home State within the zone. Home Zone/Home State posting for this purpose will also include tenure spent in duty battalions in home zone/home state.”_ ## 2. The request was not acceded to by the WP(C) NO. 27588 OF 2021 3 ## respondents. Hence this writ petition. 3. The respondents are challenging the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that the petitioner being an Officer serving outside Kerala and whose application for transfer stands rejected, cannot approach this Court assailing that order and seeking transfer to Kerala. In support of the contention respondents rely on the decisions of this Court in _**Indian Maritime University v. Viswanathan [2014 (4) KLT 798]**_ and _**Dental Council of India v. Viswanathan [2018 (3) KLT 255].**_ 4. Adv. Paul Jacob, learned Counsel for the petitioner, addressed detailed arguments. It is contended that in so far as the petitioner is seeking transfer to Kerala, this Court is having the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitoin, since part of the cause of action has arisen within the limits of this Court. In the precedents cited by the respondents, the WP(C) NO. 27588 OF 2021 4 petitioners had worked outside Kerala and had residence within Kerala after retirement. Hence, this Court was held to have jurisdiction, since the denial of terminal benefits had its impact on the petitioners residing in Kerala. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the request of the petitioner being to transfer him to Kerala, denial of the request will give rise to cause of action within Kerala. Learned Counsel relied on the Division Bench decision in _**Sudharshanan v. Union of India [2018 (4) KLT 672]**_ , wherein the High Court of Kerala was found to have territorial jurisdiction, since the petitioner, a pensioner, was to receive his pension in Kerala, though he had retired from outside the State. 6. I am unable to accept the contentions urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner. As per Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is having the power to issue WP(C) NO. 27588 OF 2021 5 writs/directions/orders to any person or authority including the Government, in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or Authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. Therefore, the essential question is whether denial of the petitioner's request for transferring him from Belgaum to Kerala has given rise to a cause of action, wholly or in part, within the territorial limits of this Court. As has been repeatedly held, 'cause of action' for the purpose of Article 226(2) must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of CPC. It means, a bundle of facts which are required to be proved. Here, the cause of action is rejection of the request for transfer. The impact of that order is the petitioner's retention at Belgaum. His aspiration of being transferred to Kerala will not give rise to the WP(C) NO. 27588 OF 2021 6 cause of action. In such circumstances, the objection regarding maintainability is found to be sustainable. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving the petitioner's right to approach the appropriate Court. ## **Sd/-** **V.G.ARUN** **JUDGE** NB/1-4 WP(C) NO. 27588 OF 2021 7 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27588/2021** ## **PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-04-**| |---|---| ||**2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-11-2019 AND**| ||**NUMERED A S TX.IX-2/2019-EC-1 CSJWT ISSUED TO**| ||**THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-02-2020 AND**| ||**NUMBERED AS T.IX-22/2020-ESTT-DA-5 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-02-2021 AND**| ||**NUMBERED AS T.IX-2/2021-CSJWT-ESTT -1 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06-07-**| ||**2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07-07-2021 AND**| ||**NUMBERED AS T.IX-1/2021-CSJWT-EC-1 ISSUED TO**| ||**THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 11-08-2021**| ||**AND NUMBERED A S T.IX-14/2021 -KKS-EC-III**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12-08-2021 ISSUED TO**| ||**THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13-08-2021 AND**| ||**NUMBERED AS T.IX-1/2021-CSJWT-EC-1 ISSUED TO**| ||**THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07-09-2021**| ||**AND NUMBERED AS T.IX-14/2021-KKS-EC 3 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-10-**| ||**2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT 12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PIS DATA OF MR. M.S.S. PILLAI**| |**EXHIBIT 13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PIS DATA OF MR. CHANDRA BABU**| ||**A.**| |**RESPONDENTS ANNEXURE:**|| |**ANNEXURE R4(a)**|**COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF TRANSFER POLICY AND**| ||**STANDING ORDER NO.7/2015**| |**ANNEXURE R4 (b)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER**| WP(C) NO. 27588 OF 2021 8 **NO.T.IX.22/2020-2021 ESTT.DA-5 DATED 17.06.2021 ANNEXURE R4(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMI OFFICIAL LETTER NO.T.IX.1/2021-CSJWT-EC-1 DATED 30.10.2021 ANNEXURE R4(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.TIX14/2021-SZ-EC-1 DATED 06.12.2021** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.A TO JUDGE**