Petitioner’s residence alone can’t determine court’s jurisdiction: Allahabad HC

A three-judge bench of Allahabad high court has said one cannot initiate legal proceedings against the other in a particular high court solely on the ground of residence of the petitioner or the parties to any petition.

A three-judge bench of Allahabad high court has said one cannot initiate legal proceedings against the other in a particular high court solely on the ground of residence of the petitioner or the parties to any petition.

Maintainability of a writ petition in a high court would depend on whether the cause of action for filing the same arose, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of that court and if cause of action arises within territorial jurisdiction of a high court, then the case is maintainable before such court irrespective of place of residence of parties.

Cause of action is ‘fact or combination of facts that gives a person the right to seek judicial redress or relief against another’, the court observed.

The bench comprising justice Sunita Agarwal, justice Anjani Kumar Misra and justice YK Srivastava decided a reference made by single judge.

The reference to the larger bench was made by the single judge in the case of Manish Kumar Misra and others expressing view that there was a conflict of opinion between the views expressed by full bench and other division benches in respect of the maintainability of writ petition against the orders/ decisions taken by an authority outside the state of Uttar Pradesh.

“The only difference made by the Constitution (Fifteenth) Amendment is that the location of the seat of Government or authority or residence of a person to whom the writ is to be issued is not to be the sole criterion for conferring jurisdiction and writs may also issue to Governments, authorities or persons outside the territory of a High Court provided the cause of action, in whole or in part, arises within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction,” said the bench.