01Facts
The respondent transferred the petitioner from its Kota showroom to its head office in Alappuzha, Kerala, by order dated 29 August 2025, and directed him to hand over charge and report there.
¶ 1–5After the petitioner did not comply, the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 6 October 2025.
¶ 1–5The petitioner challenged both orders before the Rajasthan High Court, relying on their communication to him at Kota as part of the cause of action.
¶ 1–5The Court directed the petitioner to address whether it had territorial jurisdiction.
¶ 1–502Issues
i.1. Whether mere communication at Kota of the transfer order and show-cause notice issued in Kerala gives rise to part of the cause of action within the Rajasthan High Court’s territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2)?
¶ 8–9, 14–16ii.2. Whether the Rajasthan High Court could entertain the writ petition when the impugned orders were made in Kerala and no other part of the cause of action was shown to have arisen in Rajasthan?
¶ 13–1603Law Applied
Article 226(2) of the Constitution permits a High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction where the cause of action arises wholly or in part within its territorial limits.
¶ 12.2, 12.4Cause of action means the material facts that must be established to obtain relief; a fact must have a nexus to the dispute and cannot confer jurisdiction merely because it occurred within the forum’s territory (ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu; Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.).
¶ 12.2, 12.4Mere service of a notice in the forum is insufficient unless that service is an integral part of the cause of action (State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties).
¶ 12.1The Court distinguished Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, relied on by the petitioner, as inapplicable to the circumstances of this case.
¶ 5, 14Provisions in the judgment · 1
the Act (alias, unresolved) Section 52
04Reasoning
The transfer order and show-cause notice were issued by the respondent at its head office in Alappuzha, Kerala.
¶ 13–16The petitioner’s reliance on receipt of those documents at Kota did not establish a material fact connected to the underlying dispute that arose in Rajasthan.
¶ 13–16Applying the principle that communication alone does not create a cause of action, the Court held that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction.
¶ 13–1605Holding
The Rajasthan High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
¶ 16–18It dismissed the writ petition, along with the stay application and any pending applications, while preserving the petitioner’s liberty to approach the appropriate forum where the cause of action arose wholly or in part.
¶ 16–18Original Court PDF
MAHESH CHAND S/O SHRI MAN BAHADUR CHANDvsTHE KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
