Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar Singh vs Union Of India on 3 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.155 of 2026
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9289 of 2022
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Sri Umeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Village
Patori, P.S. Satar Katiya, District Saharsa.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Jaisalmer
House, 26, Mansingh Road, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Director General, Boarder Security Force, Block No.10, CGO
Complex-10, Lodi Road, New Delhi-3.
3. The D.G. Command. Frontier Headquarter, B.S.F., Chiloda Road, B.S.F.
Campus, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat, PIN-382045.
4. I.G, B.S.F. Frontier Headquarter, B.S.F., Chiloda Road, B.S.F. Campus,
Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat, PIN-382045.
5. The DIG BSF, Headquarter B.S.F., Chiloda Road, Regional Head Office,
B.S.F. Campus, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat, PIN-382045.
6. The Commandant, 53 Bn. BSF, Chiloda Road, B.S.F. Campus, Gandhi
Nagar, Gujrat, PIN - 382045.
7. The DIG, SHQ, B.S.F., Chiloda Road, B.S.F. Campus, Gandhi Nagar,
Gujrat, PIN-382045.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Awadesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. C.G.C.
Mr. Arvind Kumar, C.G.C.
Mr. Lokesh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 03-07-2026
The appellant by filing the instant Letters Patent
Appeal questions the conclusion of the learned Single Judge
in the impugned Order, dated 31.01.2026 in C.W.J.C. No.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.155 of 2026 dt.03-07-2026
2/13
9289 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed
of the Writ Petition holding that, "in view of the aforesaid
submission, since the cause of action relating to the
petitioner has arisen within the State of Chhattisgarh, the
present writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to avail his appropriate remedy before the
competent court at Chhattisgarh within a period of 90 days
from the date of this order. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed
of". The appellant seeks the quashing of the impugned
order.
2. Before examining the merits of the matter,
to consider the matter in its correct perspective, it is
essential to briefly summarize the appellant's case.
3. The appellant, an employee of the Border
Security Force, joined service on 28.08.1994 and was
compulsorily retired on 31.07.2021 vide Order, dated
10.07.2021
at the age of 46.5 years having rendered
twenty-seven years service. He alleges that the crux of the
matter was the irregularities in the canteen pointed out by
him during his posting in 53 Battalion, B.S.F. Respondent
No. 6, in retaliation thereto, penalised the appellant for
seven days’ which the appellant strongly refuted, by filing a
representation before the Higher Officer i.e. Respondent No.
3 who set aside his penalty vide Order, dated 25.08.2012.
Pursuant to the setting aside of the Order, Respondent No.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.155 of 2026 dt.03-07-2026
3/13
6 started harassing the appellant against which the
appellant complained, vide his representation, dated
24.10.2019. He was issued a final show-cause notice, dated
13.11.2019 by Respondent No. 6 for retirement of the
appellant under B.S.F. Rules, 1969. Thereafter, several
communications ensued from the side of the appellant to
various authorities assailing the actions against him as
being illegal and arbitrary. Ultimately, the appellant
approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by filing Writ
Petition (C) No. 455 of 2021, dated 11.01.2021, which was
disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court on 19.01.2021 with a
direction to the respondents to furnish the Inquiry Officer’s
Report to the appellant and also to process the medical bills
of the appellant within two weeks. Despite such directions,
the respondents failed to take steps, and instead issued
show-cause notice dated 11.06.2021 towards the appellant
for retirement on grounds of unsuitability, alleging poor
performance, to which he filed his show-cause.
4. Without considering the show-cause of the
appellant, the Commandants 53 BN B.S.F. at COB, Phulpar
District Kankarbagh (CG) issued a letter bearing Memo No.
8302-13, dated 10.07.2021, by which the appellant was
compulsorily retired from service with effect from
31.07.2021, on grounds of unsuitability under Rule 26 of
Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to
as “B.S.F. Rules”) read with Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.155 of 2026 dt.03-07-2026
4/13
1972.
5. The appellant filed an appeal before the
Director General of B.S.F. on 27.07.2021, which was
rejected vide Letter/Order, dated 31.01.2022 and the
appellant was ‘forcefully’ retired from service with effect
from 31.07.2021. Hence the prayers of the appellant.
6. The learned Single Judge, after considering
the rival contentions, passed the impugned order, the
relevant portion has been extracted hereinabove.
7. By filing the instant L.P.A., the appellant
seeks the following reliefs:-
“(i) To set aside the impugned Judgment;
(ii) For quashing the Order, dated
10.07.2021, passed by the Commandant
53 Battalion, BSF, by which the
appellant/petitioner was retired from
service with effect from 31.07.2021 and
granted pension at the rate of 50 per cent
of emoluments or average of
emoluments, whichever is higher, with
other pensionary benefits and;
(iii) For quashing the Order, dated
31.01.2022, passed by Inspector General,
Phantiyar Headquarters, BSF, Gandhi
Nagar, Gujarat, by which the plea of the
appellant for reinstatement in service was
rejected.”
8. Learned counsel for the appellant advanced
the contentions that he is only assailing the Order of the
learned Single Judge to the extent that the Writ Court had
no jurisdiction in the matter. He does seek to agitate the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.155 of 2026 dt.03-07-2026
5/13
merits of the case. Relying on the judgment in L.P.A. No.
384 of 2022 of this High Court in Rameshwar Prasad vs.
The Union of India and Ors.,1 it was urged that in the
said matter, the Writ Court dealt with a similar matter and
concluded that an order of dismissal becomes effective only
when it is communicated or made known to the person
concerned. The appellant herein received his order of
dismissal, sent from his place of posting (Srinagar) at his
native home situated in Bihar. In such a circumstance, this
High Court had the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide
the matter.
9. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 3630 of
2020 in Shanti Devi @ Shanti Mishra vs. Union of
India and Ors., learned counsel put forth the argument
that in the said matter an appeal was filed before the
Supreme Court questioning the judgment of the Division
Bench of this High Court, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1265
of 2017 which dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. The
Letters Patent Appeal had been filed against the Judgment
of the learned Single Judge, dated 04.08.2017, by which the
Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 was dismissed, by the
learned Single Judge, on the ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside
the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court (supra)
1 2003 (2) PLJR 151
Patna High Court L.P.A No.155 of 2026 dt.03-07-2026
6/13
observed that the learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench had failed to notice the decision of its own High
Court in Saryu Singh vs. The Union of India and Ors., 2
and allowed the case of Shanti Devi (supra) with the
observation that both the Single Judge and the Division
Bench were in error in dismissing the Writ Petition on
ground of territorial jurisdiction. The Writ Petition was
accordingly revived before this High Court. It is urged by
learned counsel that in the instant case, the same
consideration ought to be extended to the appellant as a
part of cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction of
this Court.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-
Respondents supported the impugned Order and contended
that it did not warrant any interference.
11. Having given due consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused all materials on record, in the first instance, it
would be worthwhile to contemplate on Article 226(2) of
the Constitution of India, which is extracted hereinbelow for
convenience:-
” 226. Power of High Courts to
issue certain writs.-
(1)…………………………..
(2) The power conferred by
clause (1) to issue directions,
orders or writs to any2 2015 (2) PLJR 256,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.155 of 2026 dt.03-07-2026
7/13Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any
High Court exercising jurisdiction
in relation to the territories within
which the cause of action, wholly
or in part, arises for the exercise
of such power, notwithstanding
that the seat of such Government
or authority or to residence of
such person is not within those
territories.
…………………………………………
….”
12. A bare perusal of the provision is revelatory
of the fact that even if a part of the cause of action accrues
within the jurisdiction of the Court, it will lend jurisdiction in
the matter. On this facet, it would be worthwhile to walk
back in the time when, in 1963, by the Constitution
(Fifteenth) Amendment, Clause (1-A) was inserted in Article
226 of the Constitution of India, which was subsequently
renumbered as Clause (2), by the Constitution (Forty-
second) Amendment Act of 1976. Pursuant to the insertion
of this provision, the High Court could issue a writ when the
person or the Authority against whom the writ is issued, is
located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of
action wholly or partially arises within the Court’s territorial
jurisdiction.
12.1 In Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs.
Union of India and Another,3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that, although in view of Section 141 of the Code of
3 (2004) 6 SCC 254
Patna High Court L.P.A No.155 of 2026 dt.03-07-2026
8/13
Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC“), the provisions of
Section 20(c) of the CPC would not apply to Writ
proceedings, however, the phraseology used in Section
20(c) of the CPC and Clause (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution, being in pari materia, the decisions of the
Supreme Court rendered on interpretation of Section 20(c)
of the CPC, shall apply to the Writ proceedings also. That,
keeping in view the expressions used in Clause (2) of Article
226 of the Constitution, 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. That,
although cause of action has not been defined in any
statute, but judicially interpreted would, inter alia, mean
every fact which would be necessary for the Plaintiff to
prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the
judgment of the Court. Relevantly it is worth noticing that in
Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair vs. Narayanan Nair and
Ors.,4, the Court explained the expression ’cause of action’
while referring to the definition elucidated in Halsbury’s
Laws of England which explained as follows:-
16. The expression “cause of action”
has acquired a judicially settled
meaning. In the restricted sense cause
of action means the circumstances
forming the infraction of the right or the
immediate occasion for the action. In
the wider sense, it means the necessary
conditions for the maintenance of the4 (2004) 3 SCC 277
Patna High Court L.P.A No.155 of 2026 dt.03-07-2026
9/13suit, including not only the infraction of
the right, but the infraction coupled with
the right itself. Compendiously the
expression means every fact which
would be necessary for the plaintiff to
prove, if traversed, in order to support
his right to the judgment of the court.
Every fact which is necessary to be
proved, as distinguished from every
piece of evidence which is necessary to
prove each fact, comprises in “cause of
action”.
17. In Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th
Edn.) it has been stated as follows:
” ‘Cause of action’ has been
defined as meaning simply a
factual situation the existence of
which entitles one person to
obtain from the court a remedy
against another person. The
phrase has been held from
earliest time to include every fact
which is material to be proved to
entitle the plaintiff to succeed,
and every fact which a defendant
would have a right to traverse.
‘Cause of action’ has also been
taken to mean that particular act
on the part of the defendant
which gives the plaintiff his cause
of complaint, or the subject-
matter of grievance founding the
action, not merely the technical
cause of action.”
12.2. In Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union
of India and Others“,5 the Appellant therein was
employed in the Off-Shore Department of the Shipping
Corporation of India and on medical examination found
unfit for service at sea. His registration as a seaman was
5 (2014) 9 SCC 329
Patna High Court L.P.A No.155 of 2026 dt.03-07-2026
10/13
cancelled and a copy of the letter sent to the Appellant in
Bihar, his native place, where he had settled, after being
found medically unfit. The Appellant sent a representation
from his home to the Respondents, claiming disability
compensation to which, a response was sent by the
employer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that, the
employer had issued the order cancelling his registration as
seaman, to his Gaya address, where he had settled and all
claims and representations were made by the Petitioner
from his home address at Gaya. These were entertained by
the Respondent and responded to in his Bihar address. It
was held that the Writ Petition ought not to have been
dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, as a part or
fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of
the Patna High Court.
13. A bench of this Court in Rameshwar
Prasad vs. The Union of India & Ors. (supra) was
dealing with a matter wherein the petitioner/appellant was
dismissed from service and he received his order of
dismissal by post having been sent from his place of
posting (Srinagar) to his native home situated in Bihar. This
Court was of the following view:-
“6. Admittedly the appellant is a
resident of the State of Bihar and
he has been dismissed from
service on the ground that he was
on unauthorized leave. The
assertion of the appellant-writ
Patna High Court L.P.A No.155 of 2026 dt.03-07-2026
11/13petitioner is that the order of
dismissal and the appellate order
might have been passed at
Srinagar and New Delhi but those
orders were made known to him
through communications at his
village situate in the District of
Ara, Bihar and in support of the
said facts he has relied upon the
two Annexures-‘9′ & ’10’
respectively. Learned single Judge
relied upon the averments made
in paragraph 5 of the counter
affidavit wherein it has been
stated that adverse orders have
been passed, issued and
communicated to the petitioner at
Srinagar in the State of Jammu &
Kashmir and as such this Court
has no territorial jurisdiction so as
to decide the controversy involved
in this case.
7. The law is well settled that so
far the order of dismissal is
concerned that becomes effective
only when it is communicated or
made known to the person
concerned. There is no averment
in the written statement that the
order of dismissal was
communicated or served
personally to the appellant at
Srinagar or it was made known to
him at that place. The fact is that
it was sent from that place
through post to him and was
served upon him at his village
home. It does not mean that the
order of dismissal was brought to
his knowledge at his place of
posting at Srinagar. As the order of
dismissal was sent to the
appellant-writ petitioner at his
village home and received by him
there, the order became known to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.155 of 2026 dt.03-07-2026
12/13him at his village home situate in
the State of Bihar, and as such this
Court has the territorial
jurisdiction to hear and decide the
matter. Accordingly the impugned
order passed by the learned single
Judge is set aside and the matter
is remanded for fresh
consideration in accordance with
law.”
14. On the anvil of the foregoing legal position
while examining the case of the appellant, it is evident that
Annexure-10 is a representation, dated 13.09.2021
addressed by the appellant from his native place in Bihar to
the Director General, Border Security Force, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi. In response to the above communication, the
Director General, Border Security Force responded vide
Annexure- R-7 to the appellant at his address in Bihar,
Saharsa. It is also seen that the Assistant Commandant of
the Border Security Force has addressed a letter to the
appellant vide Annexure- R-8, dated 08.06.2022 refusing to
reinstate the appellant on grounds that the representation
filed by him lacks in merit.
15. In view of the foregoing circumstances, we
are of the considered view that a part of the cause of action
has arisen in the State of Bihar. In the consequent
obtaining circumstances, an error arises in the finding of
the learned Single Judge which dismissed the Writ Petition
on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.155 of 2026 dt.03-07-2026
13/13
16. Accordingly on the question of jurisdiction,
the impugned Order, dated 31.01.2026 passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 9289 of 2022, is set aside. The Writ Petition being
C.W.J.C. No. 9289 of 2022, is revived and the matter shall
be heard on merits by the learned Single Judge.
17. At this juncture, it is relevant to reiterate
that learned counsel for the appellant emphasized before
this Court that he is not agitating the merits of his case
before this Court.
18. The instant Letters Patent Appeal stands
disposed of accordingly.
19. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
(Meenakshi Madan Rai, CJ)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Guddukr/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 24.06.2026 Uploading Date 06.07.2026 Transmission Date
