The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. Banerjea, J.:— Since in the present appeal only a question of law is involved, the parties did not choose to file affidavits and the appeal itself has been heard out by consent of parties after dispension of all formalities.

2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated May 8, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant/writ petitioner on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the matter as no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the materials on records produced before us, we are, however, of the view that the Trial Court has fallen into error in holding that the Calcutta High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the matter.

3. In the writ petition the appellant/writ petitioner who admittedly, was an employee of Eastern Coalfield Ltd. and was working at the relevant point of time as Underground Loader at Lakshmimata Colliery has challenged his order of dismissal dated 20th June, 2001 passed by the General Manager, Mugma area having his office at district Dhanbad in the State of Jharkhand. It is not disputed that such order of dismissal was passed outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and at the relevant point of time when the petitioner was dismissed, he was working in a Colliery which also situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

4. In the writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari and in para 23 of the writ petition, it has been pleaded specifically that the records of the case are lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

5. It is true as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that it has not been specifically pleaded by the writ petitioner that any part of the casue of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court specifically but it is not to be overlooked that even though no part of the cause of action may arise within the jurisdiction of this Court, even then under Article 226(1) of the Constitution this Court certainly can entertain or try a writ petition if the situs of the concerned authority or the respondent against whom relief is asked for is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Admittedly, in the instant case Eastern Coalfield Ltd. has its head office at 13, R.N Mukherjee Road, Calcutta-700 001 within the jurisdiction of this Court and the said Eastern Coalfield Ltd. has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition.

7. This Court therefore has territorial??? jurisdiction to entertain and try the writ application even if no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

8. This aspect of the matter was totally overlooked by the Trial Court.

9. The fact that the High Court can entertain and try a writ petition even-though no part of the cause of action may arise within its territorial jurisdiction, in the event the situs of the authority or of any other respondent is within the territorial jurisdiction of such High Court, is no more res integra and such position of law has been settled by a number of Division Bench judgment of this Court.

10. In this connection the decisions of this Court in the case of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v. Union of India,1 in the case of S.J Coke Industries (P) Ltd. v. Coal India Ltd.,2 in the case of Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. v. ]haria Talkies & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.,3 all of which are Division Bench judgment may be referred to. The same view was expressed by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Raichand & Co. v. Director General of Foreign Trade,4 and in the case of Madanlal Jain v. Union of India (unreported) in W.P No. 2629 of 1998 (judgment delivered on March 31, 1999 by Altamas Kabir, J.). One of us (Samaresh Banerjea, J.) sitting singly has also expressed the same view in the case of Shri Khogen Bouri v. Coal India Ltd.,5 which has since been upheld by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Eastern Coalfield's Ltd. v. Shri Khogen Bouri.6

11. The ratio of the decision in the aforesaid case of Khogen Bouri on the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction is very much applicable in the present case.

12. In the said case of Khogen Bouri, the writ petitioner, namely Khogen Bouri, was also posted at the Colliery under the said Mugma Area as in the instant case. In the said case of Khogen Bouri interpretation of a very important circular was involved, namely, ECL/CMP/C-6E/10/28 dated April 2, 1996 wherein to arrest the trend of high rate of absenteeism from duty, a guideline was prepared and all the concerned authorities were directed to maintain the said guideline before taking any disciplinary action against the delinquent employees of the company. Considering such aspect of the matter it was held that Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is a necessary party in the writ proceedings and such Eastern Coalfields Ltd. which was a respondent in the writ petition had its head office within the jurisdiction of this High Court, this High Court has power to entertain and try the writ petition.

13. It was further held in the said judgment as the writ petitioner in the said case prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari and the records of the case partly situate at the registered office of the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. within the jurisdiction of this High Court, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the writ petition.

14. In the instant case also the interpretation of a circular being Ref. No. E.C.L CSO 90/80 dated July 17, 2000 issued from the office of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Eastern Coalfields Ltd., is involved as it has been alleged that the directions contained in the said circular lias been violated. It has been provided in the said circular that the Chief General Manager of an area is required to notify the case of dismissal and discharge to Headquarters.

15. It has also been pleaded neither the order of dismissal has been notified to the office of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director nor the General Manager did obtain any approval from the Chairman-cum-Managing Director for dismissing the petitioner from the service.

16. In such view of the matter Eastern Coalfields Ltd. as also the Coal India Ltd. are necessary and proper parties in the writ petition and since they have been impleaded as respondent in the writ petition and their head office situate within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court certainly can entertain and try the writ petition.

17. All these aspects were overlooked by the Trial Court.

18. It appears to us both the Trial Court as also before us, the main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the writ petition as no part of the cause of action has arisen, totally overlooking that in view of provisions of Article 226(1) of the Constitution the Courts can entertain and try the writ petition, when the respondents who are proper or necessary parties, nor have their head office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It may also be noted in this connection that the decision in the case of Khogen Bouri was upheld by the Division Bench in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Khogen Bouri, (supra) which held inter alia thus:

“On the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. But from the judgment we find that the said questions were also raised before the learned single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that this Court has jurisdiction in view of the following finding which is set out below:

‘It is the further contention of the writ petitioner that since the registered office of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is situated at Sanctoria, Burdwari within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, which is a necessary party and also the order of approval for dismissal was ultimately obtained from the Director, Personnel of the Eastern Coalfields Ltd., whose office is at the said registered office, the writ petition can be maintained before the Calcutta High Court’.

We do not find that the said finding of the learned Judge was specifically or even impliedly challenged in the grounds of appeal. The learned Judge has held that an order of dismissal has to be approved by the Director, Personnel of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and it is an admitted position that the office of the Director is at the registered office of the company which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. These facts have not been even disputed before us nor does it appear from the grounds of appeal that the aforesaid finding of the learned Single Judge was assailed. We are of the view that since the registered office of the appellant is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the order of dismissal is to be approved by an officer sitting in the registered office, this Court ha jurisdiction. Apart from that it is also not in dispute that the appellate authority's office is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court”.

19. It was sought to be argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the Division Bench judgment in the case of Eastern Coalfields Lid. v. Khogen Bouri (supra) has no application in the instant case, as the General Manager who passed the order of dismissal being above the rank of the charge-sheeting authority, i.e, Manager of the Colliery, it is not necessary to obtain any approval from any higher authority of the General Manager in respect of such order of dismissal. It is, however, not for us at this stage to go into merit of such claim made by the writ petitioner in the writ petition.

20. While examining the question whether the Court/has territorial jurisdiction, Court has to go by the pleadings and in such process it is not necessary to find out whether the relevant pleadings in respect thereof are correct or not. Such position of law is well settled.

21. As pointed out hereinbefore in the writ petition, it was pleaded specifically that the order of dismissal was bad, inter alia, on the ground that it was not notified to the head office and no approval was obtained from the Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

22. Therefore, the decision of Division Bench in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Khogen Bouri (supra) is applicable in the instant case specially when it appears that the writ petitioner was dismissed by the same General Manager of Mugma Area.

23. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, and in the case of Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd..

24. None of these cases really come to the aid of the respondents under the facts and circumstances of this case. In both the aforesaid cases the Supreme Court was considering the question of jurisdiction vis-a-vis Article 226(2) of the Constitution and not under Article 226(1) of the Constitution. In the case of Swaika Propertie's the Supreme Court held in the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case that even though a notice under section 50(2) of the Rajasthan Improvement Act, 1959 was served within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court of the cause of action arose at Rajasthan where the notification for acquisition of the land was issued.

25. In the case of Adani Exports Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court held inter alia, that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the Court to decide a dispute which has atleast in-part, arisen within its jurisdiction, it is clear that each and every fact pleaded in the application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned.

26. The Supreme Court in the said case again was dealing with a situation under Article 226(2) of the Constitution and not Article 226(1) of the Constitution.

27. That apart in our view even in the instant part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and such decision really helps the writ petitioner.

28. If a cause of action as defined in the said judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Adani Exports is kept in mind, it will appear even though the writ petitioner did not Specifically plead that a part for a cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, in view of the other pleadings, part of such cause of action indeed arises within the jurisdiction of this Court.

29. As pointed hereinbefore it was specifically pleaded in the writ petition inter alia, that the order of dismissal is bad in as much as under the provisions of the aforesaid circular issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the order of dismissal has to be notified to the head office and also approval of the head office has to be approved which was not done. Such fact pleaded in the writ petition is, therefore, very such part of the cause of action in the aforesaid writ proceeding, as the same very much have a nexus or relevance with the lis which is involved in the case. Because of such specific pleading, the Court has to interpret the said circular and to decide whether as per such notification the order of dismissal and was to be so notified and obtaining of approval is necessary.

30. Since such circular has been issued from the head office of the respondent and head office of the respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is. at Calcutta, and office of the Coal India Ltd. which is the holding company of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is also at Calcutta, part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The decision relied by the respondent in the case of Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company., has no manner of application.

31. In the said case the Supreme Court, while interpreting the provisions contained in section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure held thus:—

“The words ‘at such place’ occurring at the end of the Explanation to section 20 of Civil Procedure Code and the word ‘or’ which is disjunctive clearly suggest that if the case falls within the latter part of the Explanation, i.e, where the defendant does not have a sole office but has a principal office at one place and has also a subordinate office at another place, it is not the Court within whose jurisdiction the principal office of the defendant is situate but the Court within whose jurisdiction it has a subordinate office which alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office’.”

32. In the result the appeal succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order of the Trial Court is hereby set aside. The writ petition is now remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh hearing on merit. There will be no order as to costs.

33. Since the writ petition has been moved by a dismissed employee against the order of dismissal, we request the Trial Court to dispose of the writ application expeditiously, subject, of course, to its oter pre-occupation.

I agree,—Sd/-P.N Sinha, J.:—