Petitioner's Residence Can't Confer Article 226 Jurisdiction When Impugned Order Passed Outside HC Territory: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that it cannot entertain a writ petition against an order passed by an authority situated outside its territory merely because the petitioner resides within its territory.
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta relied on Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, wherein the Apex Court held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution turns on where the authority passing the order is located, and not on where the person aggrieved by that order lives.
Petitioner had applied for the post of Tradesman Mate (erstwhile Mazdoor) at the 9 Field Ordnance Depot, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Belonging to the OBC male category, he cleared every stage of the selection. His candidature was nonetheless cancelled and his appointment letter withdrawn on account of criminal cases pending against him. He approached the High Court seeking quashing of the order passed by the Administrative Officer of the Depot.
A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, since the authority that passed the order sits in Himachal Pradesh and the petitioner's residence could not by itself bring the matter before the Court.
Respondents relied on the seven-judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, wherein it was held that,
“the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Article 226 does not depend upon the residence or location of the person applying to it for relief; it depends only on the person or authority against whom a writ is sought being within those territories.”
The Court noted that both the respondent authorities concerned are situated at Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, that the advertisement of 2015 for the posts of Fireman, Tradesman Mate and Multi-Tasking Staff had issued from there, that the entire selection process was conducted there, and that the impugned order too was passed in that State.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the courts of appropriate jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance.
Case Title: Yadvendra Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 643
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 643