SRIDHAR KUMAR SETHY vs SPL.D.G.OF POLICE,JAMMU AND KASHMIR ZONE
- Court
- Odisha High Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No.3002 of 2024
CNR No. ODHC010737012024
th
(From the judgment dated 6 September, 2024 passed by learned
Single Judge in WP(C) No.15129 of 2016)
Sridhar Kumar Sethy …. Appellant
-versus-
…
Special Director General of Police,
Jammu & Kashmir Zone, CRPF,
Jammu and Others
Respondents
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. N.R. Routray, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC
CORAM:
HO’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
HO’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
th
5 November, 2026
B.P. Routray, J.
1 . Heard Mr. N.R. Routray, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned CGC for the Respondents.
2. The Appellant, who was removed from service while serving as a
Constable in CRPF in the State of Jammu, filed the writ petition
challenging his order of removal including the orders of the Appellate
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 1 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
and Revisional authority. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned
th
judgement dated 6 September 2026 dismissed the writ petition on the
ground that this Court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the writ
petition filed by the appellant, as the cause of action asserted in the writ
petition does not vest within the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. It is true that the Appellant was removed from service through the
th
disciplinary proceeding on 8 May 2015. The disciplinary proceeding
was initiated while the Appellant was stationed with E/160 Battalion,
CRPF, Barnai in Jammu. The Appellate Authority is located at Greater
Noida falling within the territory of State of Uttar Pradesh.
4. On the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it is stated
by the Appellant that in course of disciplinary proceeding, though his
Headquarters was fixed in Jammu but he was then continuing as a
permanent resident in the district of Keonjhar within the State of Odisha.
th
The order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 8
May 2015 was served on him while he was in his Headquarters in
Jammu. Then he returned back to his permanent residence at Anandapur
in the district of Keonjhar within the State of Odisha. While residing
there he preferred the appeal to the Appellate Authority and the
Appellate Authority has rejected his appeal and communicated the order
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 2 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
through post to his residence in the State of Odisha. Similarly, the
revision was preferred by him while residing in his house within the
State of Odisha and the Revisional Authority also communicated the
order of dismissal of the revision through post on him while residing in
his permanent address within the State of Odisha.
5. Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
part cause of action arose within the State of Odisha since he is residing
here and it is untrue that this Court did not have any territorial
jurisdiction for such cause of action to exercise its jurisdiction.
According to him the respondents, i.e. CRPF, has its office all over the
country including the State of Odisha. The State Headquarters of CRPF
is located at Bhubaneswar and other offices are there also in different
parts within State of Odisha. Thus, when the Respondents’ office is
functioning within the territory of State of Odisha, it would be wrong to
say that this Court did not have any jurisdiction in respect of the cause of
action arose for the Appellant to approach this Court. It is further
submitted that the Respondents have never raised their objection with
regard to jurisdiction in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge
and so, in other words, when the parties have not objected to the
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 3 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
jurisdiction of the Court, the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing
the writ petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
6. Mr. Gochhayat, learned CGC submits on behalf of the
Respondents that the question of jurisdiction need not be raised by the
party and the Court has the power to decide its jurisdiction. According to
him, when the Appellant was stationed in Jammu at the time of his
removal from service, mere communication of appellate and revisional
orders to his residential address within the State of Odisha will not confer
jurisdiction to the Court since no substantial cause of action arose here
on the part of the Appellant to agitate before this Court.
7. The question of territorial jurisdiction concerning the cause of
action has been well settled in different pronouncements of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. In Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and
others; 2014 (9) SCC 329 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding
the question whether Patna High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the
writ petition, have referred to Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
stated that there cannot be any doubt on the question whether or not the
cause of action arose wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has to be
decided in the light of nature and character of the proceeding under
Article 226 of the Constitution and in order to maintain the writ petition
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 4 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been
infringed by the Respondents within the territorial limits of the Court’s
jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court have observed as follows:-
“12. The term ‘cause of action’ as appearing in Clause (2) came for
consideration time and again before this court.
13. In State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, (1985) 3 SCC 217 ,
the fact was that the respondent Company having its registered
office in Calcutta owned certain land on the outskirts of Jaipur
City, was served with notice for acquisition of land under the
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. Notice was duly served
on the Company at its registered office in Calcutta. The Company,
first appeared before the Special Court and finally the Calcutta
High Court by filing a writ petition challenging the notification of
acquisition. The matter ultimately came before this Court to answer
a question as to whether the service of notice under Section 52(2)
of the Act at the registered office of the respondent in Calcutta was
an integral part of cause of action and was it sufficient to invest the
Calcutta High Court with a jurisdiction to entertain the petition
challenging the impugned notification. Answering the question this
Court held:
“ 7 . Upon these facts, we are satisfied that the cause of action
neither wholly nor in part arose within the territorial limits of
the Calcutta High Court and therefore the learned Single
Judge had no jurisdiction to issue a rule nisi on the petition
filed by the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution
or to make the ad interim ex parte prohibitory order
restraining the appellants from taking any steps to take
possession of the land acquired. Under sub-section (5) of
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 5 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
Section 52 of the Act the appellants were entitled to require
the respondents to surrender or deliver possession of the
lands acquired forthwith and upon their failure to do so, take
immediate steps to secure such possession under sub-section
(6) thereof.
8 . The expression ‘cause of action’ is tersely defined in
Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure :
“The ‘cause of action’ means every fact which, if traversed, it
would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to
support his right to a judgment of the court.” In other words,
it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to
them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant.
The mere service of notice under Section 52(2) of the Act on
the respondents at their registered office at 18-B, Brabourne
Road, Calcutta i.e. within the territorial limits of the State of
West Bengal, could not give rise to a cause of action within
that territory unless the service of such notice was an integral
part of the cause of action. The entire cause of action
culminating in the acquisition of the land under Section 52(1)
of the Act arose within the State of Rajasthan i.e. within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at the
Jaipur Bench. The answer to the question whether service of
notice is an integral part of the cause of action within the
meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution must depend
upon the nature of the impugned order giving rise to a cause
of action. The Notification dated 8-2-1984 issued by the State
Government under Section 52(1) of the Act became effective
the moment it was published in the Official Gazette as
thereupon the notified land became vested in the State
Government free from all encumbrances. It was not necessary
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 6 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
for the respondents to plead the service of notice on them by
the Special Officer, Town Planning Department, Jaipur under
Section 52(2) for the grant of an appropriate writ, direction or
order under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the
notification issued by the State Government under Section
52(1) of the Act. If the respondents felt aggrieved by the
acquisition of their lands situate at Jaipur and wanted to
challenge the validity of the notification issued by the State
Government of Rajasthan under Section 52(1) of the Act by a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the remedy of
the respondents for the grant of such relief had to be sought
by filing such a petition before the Rajasthan High Court,
Jaipur Bench, where the cause of action wholly or in part
arose.”
14. This provision was again considered by this Court in Oil and
Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu , (1994) 4 SCC 711.
In this case the petitioner Oil and Natural Gas Commission
(ONGC) through its consultant Engineers India Limited (EIL)
issued an advertisement in the newspaper inviting tenders for
setting up of Kerosene Recovery Processing Unit in Gujarat
mentioning that the tenders containing offers were to be
communicated to EIL, New Delhi. After the final decision was
taken by the Steering Committee at New Delhi, the respondent
N ICCO moved the Calcutta High Court praying that ONGC be
restrained from awarding the contract to any other party. It was
ICCO
pleaded in the petition that N came to know of the tender from
the publication in the Times of India within the jurisdiction of the
Calcutta High Court. This Court by setting aside the order passed
by the Calcutta High Court came to the following conclusion:
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 7 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
“ 6 . Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of
territorial jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded
in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit
without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or
otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question
whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a
writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments
made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being
immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial
jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the
petition. Therefore, the question whether in the instant case
the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and
decide the writ petition in question even on the facts alleged
must depend upon whether the averments made in paras 5, 7,
18, 22, 26 and 43 are sufficient in law to establish that a part
of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the
Calcutta High Court.”
15. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC
254, this Court elaborately discussed clause (2) of Article 226 of
the Constitution, particularly the meaning of the word “cause of
action” with reference to Section 20( c ) and Section 141 of the Code
of Civil Procedure and observed:
“ 9 . Although in view of Section 141 of the Code of Civil
Procedure the provisions thereof would not apply to writ
proceedings, the phraseology used in Section 20( c ) of the Code of
Civil Procedure and clause (2) of Article 226, being in pari materia,
the decisions of this Court rendered on interpretation of Section
20( c ) CPC shall apply to the writ proceedings also. Before
proceeding to discuss the matter further it may be pointed out that
the entire bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 8 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
action as what is necessary to be proved before the petitioner can
obtain a decree is the material facts. The expression material facts
is also known as integral facts.
10 . Keeping in view the expressions used in clause (2) of Article
226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small
fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the
Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter.” Their
Lordships further observed as under:
“ 29 . In view of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, now if a part of cause of action arises outside the jurisdiction
of the High Court, it would have jurisdiction to issue a writ. The
decision in Khajoor Singh [ Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of
India , AIR 1961 SC 532] has, thus, no application.
30 . We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small
part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a
determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the
matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of
forum conveniens.”
16. In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. , (2002) 1 SCC 567, this
Court held that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to
entertain a writ petition it must disclose that the integral facts
pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause so as
to empower the Court to decide the dispute and the entire or a part
of it arose within its jurisdiction. Each and every fact pleaded by
the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the
conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the
Court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts are such which
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 9 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
have a nexus or relevance with the lis i.e. involved in the case. This
Court observed:
“ 17 . It is seen from the above that in order to confer jurisdiction on
a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil
application as in this case, 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, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is
clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by
the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the
conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the
court's 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. If we apply
this principle then we see that none of the facts pleaded in para 16
of the petition, in our opinion, falls into the category of bundle of
facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a
dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at
Ahmedabad.”
xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
19. Regard being had to the discussion made hereinabove, there
cannot be any doubt that the question whether or not cause of
action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within
the territorial limit of any High Court has to be decided in the light
of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner
has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 10 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court's
jurisdiction.”
th
8. This Court in W.A. No.76 of 2020, vide order dated 13 July,
2021 while dealing with dismissal of service of an employee of UCO
Bank stationed in Bihar, has decided in favour of maintainability of the
writ petition by this Court relying on the case of Kusum Ingots v. Union
of India ; (2004) 6 SCC 254 . In the afore-cited case, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has explained that in view of Clause 2 of Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, if a part of cause of action arose outside the
jurisdiction of High Court it would have jurisdiction to issue the writ.
9. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has referred
to the case of Nirman Sarkar v. Canara Bank and Ors. , WP
rd
No.11116/2021 decided on 23 August 2022 by the Madhya Pradesh
High Court. In the said decision the Madhya Pradesh High Court has
relied on the case of Kusum Ingots (supra).
10. As gathered from different decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court,
viz., Kusum Ingots (supra), Ambika Industries v. Commissioner of
Central Excise , (2007) 6 SCC 769, Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of
Sikkim : (2007) 11 SCC 335 and Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.,
(2002) 1 SCC 567 it is discerned that, even if a miniscule part of cause of
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 11 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, a writ petition would be
maintainable, however the cause of action has to be understood properly.
It is not that the Appellant can chose forum conveniens and the doctrine
of forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to be
scrutinized by the High Court depending on the factual aspects of each
case.
11. This Court in (Sri) Janardan Mohanty v. Union of India and 3
others; 2000 (II) OLR 126 , while dealing with removal of an employee
from service while posted in Ranchi examined the cause of action falling
within the State of Odisha and ultimately found the writ petition
maintainable before this Court. This Court have held as follows:
“4. Learned Advocate for the opp. Parties has referred to the
decisions of the Supreme Court in OIL and Natural Gas Commission
v. Utpal Kumar Basu and others reported in JT 1994 (5) SC and in
State of Rajasthan and others v. M/s. Swaika Properties and another,
AIR 1985 SC 1289 to submit that mere service of the appellate order
on the petitioner in the State of Orissa cannot form part of the cause of
action.
5. The aforesaid decisions were rendered in the facts and
circumstances of those cases. In those decisions the petitioners were
companies, which had capacity and ability to avail of their judicial
remedies in Rajasthan and Delhi. In fact both the companies appeared
and actively participated in the proceeding, administrative and quasi-
judicial, in Rajasthan and Delhi. Those Companies deliberately
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 12 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
selected their forum although they could approach Rajasthan and
Delhi High Courts where decision was taken. Even in those two
decisions Supreme Court did not lay down any general proposition
that service of notice can never form part of the cause of action. We
are of the opinion that strict standard applied by the Supreme Court in
case of Companies with sufficient resources should not be adopted in
case of individual dismissed employee seeking to challenge an order
relating to his removal in the State where he has taken shelter in usual
course after his removal from service.
6. Right to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
enforce fundamental rights and other legal rights against the State or
authority or its agency is a constitutional right. Such right should not
be made illusory or unenforceable upon narrow construction of the
concept of cause of action. In the present case, the petitioner was a
member of the CISF and All India Organization. CISF has admittedly
its network of offices and establishments in different parts of India
including the State of Orissa. The petitioner is an employee removed
from service and in usual course, he had come back to the place of his
permanent residence in Orissa to take shelter after he had been
removed from service. It is not possible for him a jobless employee to
come to the State where he was last posted to avail of his right under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. CISF with its net-work of
offices and establishments is not likely to suffer and irreparable
prejudice in meeting legal challenge of the petitioner in this Court.”
12. Coming to the present facts of the case at hand it is true that the
disciplinary proceeding was initiated and concluded while the Appellant
was stationed in Jammu. But it is not disputed that after his removal
pursuant to the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceeding, he
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 13 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
preferred appeal from his permanent residence within the State of Odisha
and revision from that place within State of Odisha. The appeal and the
revision was prepared and submitted from Odisha and there was
communication of the results of dismissal of appeal and revision to the
residential address of the Appellant within the State of Odisha. It remains
undisputed that CRPF is an All-India organization having its offices at
different parts of the country including the State of Odisha. It has its
network through out the country and an employee like the Appellant who
was removed from service from one of its offices in Jammu came back to
his house in the district of Keonjhar in Odisha State and taking shelter
there has approached the Appellate and Revisional Authority.
Considering from the angle of the Appellant that he was residing
permanently within the State of Odisha and during his course of
residence in the State of Odisha he preferred the appeal and revision, it is
satisfied that a part of cause of action arose within the territory of Odisha
State. After all by maintaining the writ petition before this Court it would
not in any way cause harm or prejudice to the Respondents, but on the
other hand a jobless employee like the Appellant if allowed to move to
other High Court outside Odisha would certainly meet local challenges
and financial stringency to pursue his case. Thus, not only considering
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 14 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 11-Nov-2026 13:47:35
from the angle of cause of action partly arose within the State of Odisha,
but also the misery of the Appellant, it is held that the writ petition is
maintainable before this Court for the reasons stated above. We
accordingly disagree with the view of learned Single Judge and hold the
writ petition to be maintainable before this Court.
13. The impugned order of leaned Single Judge is thus set aside and
the writ petition is restored back to be decided on merit by the
appropriate bench.
14. The writ appeal is disposed of as allowed.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
M.K. Panda,P.A.
WA No.3002 of 2024 Page 15 of 15