Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Vikas Wadhwa vs Punjab And Sind Bank … on 21 April, 2026
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2026:RJ-JD:19003]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6607/2026
PETITIONER:
Vikas Wadhwa S/o Rajesh Wadhwa, Aged About 43 years, R/o 83 D
Block, Ward No. 06, Gajsinghpur City, Padampur, Ganganagar
(Raj.)
(Presently working at Zonal Office, Mogha Zone, Punjab).
----Petitioner
Versus
RESPONDENTS:
1. Punjab and Sind Bank, through General Manager, Corporate
Office, Block 3M, NBCC Building, 2Nd Floor, Plate B, East
Kidwai, Nagar, New Delhi-110023.
2. Deputy General Manager (HRD), Punjab and Sind Bank,
Zonal Office, Mogha Branch.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Madhav Vyas Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Vikas Balia Senior Advocate
assisted by Prateek Charan Advocate
and Mr. Rajat Arora Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
21/04/2026
1. Although the instant petition has come up on an
application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, yet
during the course of arguments, a preliminary objection with regard
to maintainability of the writ petition on account of lack of territorial
jurisdiction was raised on behalf of the respondents, therefore, with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard
on such preliminary objection.
2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with following
prayers:
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 11:46:48 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:34:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19003] (2 of 9) [CW-6607/2026]“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the present petition
for writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be allowed and;
by an appropriate writ, order or direction:
(i) The order dated 20.03.2026 (Annx.12) may kindly be
quashed and the same may kindly be set aside.
(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to permit the
petitioner to discharge his duties at Zonal Office, Moga Zone.
(iii) Any other writ or direction that may be deemed fit, just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be
issued in favour of the petitioner.
(iv) Costs may kindly be awarded.”
3. At the threshold, Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that
since no part of cause of action has accrued in the territory of state
of Rajasthan, therefore, this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to
entertain and adjudicate the present writ petition. It was submitted
that the petitioner is presently posted and residing at Moga, Punjab,
while the impugned suspension order dated 20.03.2026 has been
passed by the competent authority, i.e., Deputy General Manager
(HRD), at the Head Office situated in New Delhi, both of which lie
outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
4. It was further argued that the petitioner has failed to
plead or establish any integral or material facts constituting a part of
the cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
Mere assertion of residence or incidental facts is not sufficient to
confer jurisdiction unless such facts form an essential part of the
cause of action.
5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is settled
proposition of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction only
when the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its
territorial limits and such facts must be specifically pleaded and
demonstrated. In the present case, no such foundational facts have
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 11:46:48 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:34:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19003] (3 of 9) [CW-6607/2026]
been disclosed in the writ petition. It was, therefore, contended that
since the impugned order has been passed by an authority situated
outside the jurisdiction of this Court and no part of the cause of
action has arisen within territorial limits of this Court, the writ
petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on the
ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
6. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon judgment dated
07.08.2023 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s
Divya Upchar Sansthan & Others vs. Directorate General of
Goods and Service Tax Intelligence & Others (D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 8526/2022) as well as recent judgment dated
26.02.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur
Bench in Surendra Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21768/2013).
7. Per contra, Mr. Madhav Vyas, learned counsel for the
petitioner opposed the preliminary objection regarding lack of
territorial jurisdiction by placing reliance on Article 226(2) of the
Constitution of India, contending that a High Court can exercise
jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its
territorial limits, irrespective of the location of the respondent
authority.
8. It was submitted that the expression “cause of action”
must be understood in the same sense as under Section 20(c) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., the bundle of material facts which are
required to be proved for obtaining relief. For determining territorial
jurisdiction, the Court is required to examine only the averments
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 11:46:48 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:34:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19003] (4 of 9) [CW-6607/2026]made in the writ petition, without adjudicating upon their
correctness.
9. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal
Kumar Basu & Others (1994) 4 SCC 711 and Kusum Ingots &
Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India & Another (2004) 6 SCC 254,
wherein it has been held that even if a part of the cause of action
arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, it would be
sufficient to confer jurisdiction and such determination must be
based on the pleadings in the petition.
10. Applying the aforesaid principles, it was contended that in
the present case, a part of the cause of action has clearly arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The allegations against
the petitioner pertain to his functioning at the branch located within
jurisdiction of this Court; the show cause notice, suspension orders
and subsequent actions are intrinsically connected with such place
and the FIR has also been registered within the territorial limits of
this Court. Earlier interim orders passed by this Court in earlier writ
petitions were also complied with by the respondents. It was further
pointed out that at the time of alleged incidents referred in the
impugned order, the petitioner was posted and residing within the
jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Counsel submitted that as the
impugned order is in furtherance of earlier incidents which took place
within the territory of Rajasthan and the fundamental cause as well
as facts related to the impugned order are also interlinked and
interwoven, therefore, it is established that the impugned action has
direct nexus thereto.
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 11:46:48 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:34:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19003] (5 of 9) [CW-6607/2026]
11. In view of above, it was submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the pleadings clearly disclose that at least a part
of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Court and therefore, the objection raised by the respondents is
liable to be rejected.
12. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
13. The objection raised by the respondents goes to the root
of the matter, as it pertains to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court
to entertain the present writ petition. It is a settled proposition of
law that the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution is primarily determined by the situs of the cause of
action, wholly or in part, as envisaged under Article 226(2).
14. The expression “cause of action” has consistently been
interpreted to mean a bundle of material facts which are necessary
for the petitioner to plead and prove in order to obtain the relief
claimed. For the purposes of determining territorial jurisdiction, the
Court is required to examine the averments made in the writ
petition, without entering into the correctness or otherwise of such
pleadings. However, it is equally well settled that such facts must
constitute integral, essential or material facts forming part of the
cause of action and not merely incidental or ancillary facts.
15. In the present case, the admitted position which emerges
from the record is that the petitioner is presently posted at Moga,
Punjab and is residing there. The impugned order dated 20.03.2026
has been passed by the competent authority, namely the Deputy
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 11:46:48 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:34:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19003] (6 of 9) [CW-6607/2026]
General Manager (HRD), at the Head Office of the respondent-Bank
situated in New Delhi. Thus, both the situs of the petitioner’s posting
as well as the authority passing the impugned order fall outside the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
16. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner, in the cases of Oil and Natural Gas Commission
(supra) and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra), do not
advance the case of the petitioner; rather, they reinforce the
principle that only those facts which are integral to the cause of
action can confer jurisdiction. In the present case, such foundational
facts are conspicuously absent.
17. After duly considering the aforesaid two judgments
delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Division Bench of this Court in
the case of M/s Divya Upchar Sansthan & Others(supra) has
held as under:
“14. The undisputed facts which emerges from the pleadings
are that the petitioner-Firm and its registered office of business
is located in the State of Punjab. The authority, who has issued
show cause notice to the petitioner-Firm, is located in the State
of Punjab. The business transaction of the petitioner-Firm was
with respondent No.7- M/s. Gagan Pharmaceuticals,
Sriganganagar, who is located in the State of Rajasthan. The
show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner-Firm and
service of the same was also effected in the State of Punjab
although the show cause notice emanates from the file of the
respondent-Department which is common to both the
petitioner-Firm and respondent No.7 for issuance of notices. It
is also clear that the evasion of the Tax liability on both
petitioner-Firm as well as the respondent No.7 is not similar
and they are held liable for the violations/infractions
respectively at their own ends. The petitioners were receiving
the goods for onward sale etc. in the State of Punjab were
manufactured by the respondent No.7 in the State of
Rajasthan.
16. On a careful scrutiny of the above mentioned facts clearly
show that no part of cause of action has arisen within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because the
petitioner-Firm was having a business transaction with
respondent No.7 and certain evasions having been pointed out
in the same, will not give any cause of action to the petitioner-
Firm to approach this Court by way of filing the present writ
petition.
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 11:46:48 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:34:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19003] (7 of 9) [CW-6607/2026]
17. Secondly, merely because the show cause notice has been
issued to the petitioner-Firm on the basis of a common file
maintained by the official respondents, will not be relevant to
draw a presumption that part of cause of action has arisen to
the petitioner-Firm in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court,
merely because on the basis of the same common file, the
show cause notice has been issued to the respondent No.7.
19. In view of authoritative pronouncements of the judgments
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the arguments of learned Sr.
Counsel that the proceedings out of the present show cause
notice have started from a file of even number from which the
proceedings were started against the respondent No.7, has no
bearing giving rise to any cause of action to file the present writ
petition before this Court. Further, merely because the
petitioner-Firm is having a business transaction with
respondent No.7, who is located in the State of Rajasthan and
on certain transactions, the evasion of duty is alleged will not
give any cause of action to the petitioner-Firm for filing writ
petition before this Court for the simple reason that the
evasion, if any, done by the petitioners were taken note of by
the authorities located in State of Punjab and, therefore, they
have rightly issued show cause notice to the petitioners for
undertaking the proceedings in the State of Punjab.”
18. Similarly in the case of Surendra Singh (supra), Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur has sustained the objection
regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction on the basis of following
observations:-
“32. Upon consideration of the various judgments rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts, the consistent
legal position that emerges is that the invocation of territorial
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
dependent upon the place where the cause of action, wholly or
in part, arises, and not merely upon the location of the parties
or the place where the order is communicated. Ordinarily, in
matters relating to termination of service, the cause of action
arises at the place where the disciplinary proceedings are
initiated, conducted and concluded, and where the impugned
order is passed. The residential address of the employee, by
itself, has no nexus with the disciplinary process. In a different
factual matrix, for instance, where the charge pertains to wilful
absence or abandonment of duty and the charge-sheet or
notices are required to be served at the employee’s residential
address, the place of such service may assume relevance in
determining territorial jurisdiction; however, such
determination would necessarily depend upon the nature of the
charges and the role of service of notice in completing the
cause of action.
33. In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings were
neither initiated nor conducted within the territorial limits of
this Court. The order of termination was issued outside the
State and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also
considered and decided outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
The petitioner’s place of residence does not constitute an
essential or integral fact for adjudication of the disciplinary
action. The communication of the termination order at the
petitioner’s residential address merely confers knowledge of the
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 11:46:48 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:34:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19003] (8 of 9) [CW-6607/2026]decision already taken and, at best, furnishes a right to initiate
proceedings; it does not, in the facts of the present case, form
part of the bundle of material facts constituting the cause of
action.”
19. A careful reading of the writ petition does not reveal any
specific pleading demonstrating that any part of the cause of action,
in its material sense, has arisen within the territorial limits of this
Court. The petitioner has made general assertions regarding certain
events having nexus with a place falling within the jurisdiction of this
Court. However, such assertions, even if taken at face value, do not
constitute essential or integral facts for conferring territorial
jurisdiction to this Court.
20. The cause of action in the present case primarily arises
from the passing of the impugned suspension order and its
consequences. Both these aspects are clearly located outside the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mere reference to prior events or
allegations, which are not directly determinative of the relief sought,
cannot be construed as giving rise to a part of the cause of action
within jurisdiction of this Court.
21. The contention of the petitioner that the respondents have
participated in the proceedings or complied with certain interim
directions of this Court also does not confer jurisdiction where none
exists in law. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent,
acquiescence, or waiver, and the principle of approbation and
reprobation cannot override a statutory or constitutional limitation on
jurisdiction.
22. This Court also finds substance in the objection raised by
the respondents that mere residence of the petitioner or existence of
some incidental facts within the State would not, by itself, confer
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 11:46:48 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:34:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19003] (9 of 9) [CW-6607/2026]
territorial jurisdiction unless such facts form a material part of the
cause of action. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate such nexus.
23. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no part of the cause of action, either wholly or in part,
has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court so as to
invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
24. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the
respondents is sustained. This Court holds that it lacks territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.
25. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground
of lack of territorial jurisdiction. However, it is made clear that the
petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the
competent Court having jurisdiction in accordance with law.
26. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
MANOJ NARWANI/179
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 11:46:48 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 09:34:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link
