Reference To Prior Events In State, Allegations Not Integral To Relief Sought Can't Confer Territorial Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court held that mere reference to prior events or general allegations which are not directly determinative of the relief sought in the petition, cannot be construed to mean that a part of cause of action has arisen in the State for the court to have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate. The bench of Justice Anand Sharma opined that to deterime territorial jurisdiction, the...
Rajasthan High Court held that mere reference to prior events or general allegations which are not directly determinative of the relief sought in the petition, cannot be construed to mean that a part of cause of action has arisen in the State for the court to have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma opined that to deterime territorial jurisdiction, the Court is required to examine the averments made in the writ petition, without entering into the correctness or otherwise of such pleadings. However, such facts must constitute integral, essential or material facts forming part of the cause of action and not merely incidental or ancillary facts.
"A careful reading of the writ petition does not reveal any specific pleading demonstrating that any part of the cause of action, in its material sense, has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court. The petitioner has made general assertions regarding certain events having nexus with a place falling within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, such assertions, even if taken at face value, do not constitute essential or integral facts for conferring territorial jurisdiction to this Court.
The cause of action in the present case primarily arises from the passing of the impugned suspension order and its consequences. Both these aspects are clearly located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mere reference to prior events or allegations, which are not directly determinative of the relief sought, cannot be construed as giving rise to a part of the cause of action within jurisdiction of this Court"
For context, the Court was hearing a petition that challenged the suspension order of the petitioner. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
The respondents argued that the petitioner was presently posted in Punjab, and the suspension order was passed by the authority at the Head Office i.e. in Delhi. Merely residential or incidental facts were not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court unless such facts formed essential part of the cause of action.
On the contrary, the petitioner submitted that the allegations against him pertained to his functioning at the branch located within Rajasthan. Hence, subsequent actions like show cause notices, suspension orders were intrinsically connected with this place, and the FIR was also registered within the Court's jurisdiction.
It was further submitted that the earlier interim orders by the Court in earlier writ petitioner were also complied with by the respondents. Since the challenged order was in furtherance of the earlier incidents that took place in Rajasthan, Court had jurisdiction.
The Court also rejected the argument of respondents complying with past orders of the Court and held that the same did not confer any jurisdiction on the Court when none existed in law.
“This Court also finds substance in the objection raised by the respondents that mere residence of the petitioner or existence of some incidental facts within the State would not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction unless such facts form a material part of the cause of action. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate such nexus.”
Accordingly, it was held that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and it was dismissed.
Title: Vikas Wadhwa v Punjab and Sind Bank & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 171