Parties cannot confer territorial jurisdiction on a court lacking inherent jurisdiction.

The petitioner, a BSF Constable, was tried by a Summary Security Force Court for alleged offences under Sections 19(a) and 26 of the Border Security Force Act and was dismissed from service by order dated 5 November 2004.

He filed the writ petition seeking quashing of the dismissal order, the SSFC proceedings, and the charges, along with reinstatement-related relief.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection at the stage of final hearing that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the alleged offences, SSFC trial, and punishment had all occurred at Battalion Headquarters, Khasiamangal.

The petitioner argued that the respondents were precluded from raising the objection belatedly because it had not been pleaded in their response or at the admission stage.

Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitioner’s challenge to the SSFC proceedings and dismissal order.

Whether the respondents were estopped from raising the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction at the final-hearing stage because they had not raised it earlier.

Territorial jurisdiction is a foundational requirement, and parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court that inherently lacks it through consent, acquiescence, omission, or conduct.

The Court must independently determine whether any part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits, even where the parties do not object.

Relying on Altaf Ahmad Mir v. Union of India and Nazir Ahmed Najar v. Union of India, the Court noted that a belated objection may not succeed where part of the cause of action has accrued within the Court’s jurisdiction; however, those cases were decided on merits after finding such territorial connection.

The Court further relied on Shahnawaz Ahmad v. Union of India & Ors. and Zahoor Ahmad Baba v. Union of India & Ors., which held that a writ petition challenging a dismissal order is maintainable before the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the order was made, and that mere receipt of the order within another territory does not confer jurisdiction.

The petitioner conceded that the alleged offences were committed outside the Court’s territorial jurisdiction and that the SSFC trial was also conducted outside its territorial limits.

Since the material events forming the cause of action—including the alleged misconduct, trial, and punishment—occurred beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court, no relevant part of the cause of action was shown to have arisen within it.

Although the respondents had not raised the objection earlier, their omission could not create jurisdiction where none existed.

The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the petitioner because, in those cases, the Court had found that part of the cause of action arose within its territory.

The writ petition was dismissed, while the petitioner was left free to approach the competent jurisdictional court for redressal of his grievances.