Srinagar, Oct. 1, KDC: Holding that constitutional writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised when no material or integral part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by a Border Security Force (BSF) constable challenging the acceptance of his voluntary retirement order passed by battalion authorities in Meghalaya.
Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the challenge, while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent jurisdictional court for the redressal of his grievances.
The petitioner, Khursheed Ahmad Khan, had approached the High Court seeking the quashing of an order dated June 16, 2023, passed by the Commandant, 50 Battalion BSF, Praharinagar, Tura (Meghalaya), whereby his application for voluntary retirement was accepted and he was struck off the unit’s strength with immediate effect.
According to the petitioner, he was initially granted permission to maintain a trimmed beard in January 2018. However, on June 16, 2023, this permission was abruptly revoked. He alleged that the sudden revocation compelled him under distress to submit an application for voluntary retirement, which the authorities accepted on the very day of its submission. The petitioner contended that when he submitted an application to withdraw his retirement request the following day, it was rejected arbitrarily on July 5, 2023, and his pension was subsequently fixed without his consent.
Contesting the maintainability of the petition, the Union of India, represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India T. M. Shamsi and Central Government Counsel Faizan Ali, raised a preliminary objection regarding the total absence of territorial jurisdiction.
The authorities submitted that Khan had enrolled in the BSF in March 1998, had accumulated 13 adverse service entries for offences including absence without leave and intoxication, and was placed in a permanent low medical category. The respondents stated that on June 16, 2023, the petitioner was found shabbily dressed with an untrimmed, free-flowing beard in violation of force regulations and Supreme Court directives. Following the revocation of beard permission, the petitioner voluntarily insisted on immediate retirement citing his mother’s illness and personal health. He was heard in person by the Commandant, where he explicitly denied any duress, leading the competent authority to relax the three-month notice period and accept his request at Tura, Meghalaya.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the court had jurisdiction because the Director General, BSF, New Delhi, and the Inspector General, BSF, Kashmir, were arrayed as parties, Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed, “It is evident from the record that the application was submitted by the petitioner to the respondents for voluntary retirement at a place which is situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the order impugned in this petition was also passed at Tura Meghalaya which is also beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, as such, this Court is of the considered view that no cause of action has accrued with in the territorial jurisdiction of this court and this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and adjudicate the same.”
Addressing the arraying of official respondents, the Bench held, “A perusal of the record reveals that the Inspector General, BSF, Kashmir, has no nexus with the controversy at hand. Indeed, the material respondent arrayed in the present petition is the Inspector General, BSF, Shillong. The petitioner’s contention that the Director General, BSF, New Delhi, is subject to the jurisdiction of any High Court across India is equally unmeritorious. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, territorial jurisdiction is contingent upon the cause of action, wholly or in part, arising within the local limits of the concerned High Court.”
Relying on coordinate and Division Bench precedents, the court reiterated that even a fraction of a cause of action must form an integral, essential, or material part of the dispute to clothe a High Court with jurisdiction.
Finding that no part of the grievance or decision-making occurred within Jammu and Kashmir, the High Court dismissed the petition on the threshold of jurisdiction, leaving the soldier free to seek legal remedy before the appropriate forum. (KDC)
