Airports Authority Of India, Pensioners Forum vs Airports Authority Of India & Ors.

The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers.

The petitioner is a Pensioners Forum represented by its President. In paragraph 1 of the writ petition, it is stated that the members of the petitioner Forum hail from different States across India and there are hundreds of similarly placed petitioners across the nation. In paragraph 21, details of 15 members of the petitioner Forum who hail from different States have been mentioned. A preliminary objection has been raised in the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is stated that the petition has been filed by the Forum as a public interest litigation and since it is a service matter, no such writ petition is permissible. It is stated that the individual members, if they have got a grievance, should have raised it before the appropriate statutory authority seeking CCS pension and since the grievance is not of the Forum, the writ petition as filed, is not maintainable. It is also pointed out that none of the aggrieved persons have been joined as petitioners in the writ petition. Another contention taken is that the writ petition is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction, since members of the Forum are admittedly from outside Kerala and they have worked and retired in other States and no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

Arguments were addressed on the maintainability. Counsel for the 1^st respondent relied on the decisions in Vinoy Kumar v. State of UP & Ors. [(2001) 4 SCC 734], Tancem Marketing Employees' Welfare Union v. Secretary to Government & Ors. [(2019) SCC OnLine. Madras 26944], Viswa Hindu Pareeshath Vibhag Karyalayam v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC Online 1556], Swakshtagrahi Sangh, Janpad Panchayat Niwas v. Union of India & Ors. [2022 (2) MPLJ 526], Paradip Port Trust Officer Pensioners' Association v. Union of India & Ors. [2024 SCC OnLine Orissa 2609], State of Kerala & Anr. v. Kerala Government Veterinary Officers Association & Ors. [OP KAT No. 316 of 2024], Kerala State Government Ayurveda Medical Officers Association & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [OP(KAT) No.447 of 2024] and All India BSNL Pensioners' Welfare Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [OP(CAT) No. 60 of 2020] to contend that the petitioner has no locus standi to prefer a writ petition. The counsel also relied on the decisions in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 711], Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commandant [1999 (3) KLT 629 (FB)], Anand Anoop v. Union of India [2014 SCC OnLine Kerala 28473= 2014 (3) KLT 171], The Registrar, Indian Maritime University v. Dr. K. G. Viswanathan & Anr. [(2014) SCC OnLine Kerala 21221 = 2014 (4) KLT 798 (FB)], Dental Council of India v. Viswanath [2018 (3) KLT 255(FB)], Aparna Balan v. Union of India [2018 (3) KLT 832] and ILA Rajeev (Minor) v. National Institute of Design & Anr. [(2021) SCC OnLine Kerala 3059] to contend that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the writ petition.

The counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Central Government Pensioner's Association Kerala v. Union of India & Anr. [WP(C)No.23282 of 2005], All India Loco Running Staff v. Union of India & Anr. [1985 (1) WLN 137], Suprita Chandel v. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022], Babubhai Jamnadas Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2009 KHC 1008], Kedar Narayan Parida & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Anr. [2009 KHC 5066] and Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [1998 KHC 650] to contend that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

I shall first consider the question of territorial jurisdiction. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, in determining an objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration, albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. A Full Bench of this Court considered the issue in Nakul Deo Singh (supra). That was a case where the petitioners before the Court were subjected to disciplinary enquiry, culminating in punishment. The enquiry and punishment were all imposed when the petitioners were working outside Kerala. In one case, the order was served while the petitioner was working within Kerala, and in another case, the order was served while he was working in New Delhi. But after the receipt of the order, the petitioner returned to his native place at Trivandrum. The Full Bench held that receipt of a communication by itself will not constitute a fact in the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action. The Court held that when the action complained of takes place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and an appeal is dismissed by an authority located outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, the cause of action wholly arises outside the jurisdiction of the High Court and Article 226(2) of the Constitution cannot be invoked to sustain a writ petition in the High Court on the basis that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction since the order was communicated while the petitioner was residing or working within the jurisdiction of the Court.

In Anand Anoop (supra), the appellant before the Court was a candidate who appeared for a pre-medical entrance examination conducted by an institute which is situated in Maharashtra. Applications were filed by the appellant for nomination to the Central Pool seats before the officials in the designated Ministry of the Government of India under the category “Ward of Defence Personnel”, as his father was serving as Command Aviation Officer in the Indian Navy. It is thereafter that the appellant approached the High Court with a writ petition seeking to finalise the select list of nominees to the Central Pool seats. The writ petition was dismissed, finding that there was no territorial jurisdiction. The Division Bench affirmed the decision, relying on a judgment in ONGC (supra). In doing so, the Division Bench held that no cause of action either wholly or in part arose within the jurisdictional limits of the High Court of Kerala. The Division Bench has also relied on the definition of the term “cause of action” stated in Read v. Brown (1888 (22) QBD 128), that cause of action would mean “every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. It does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved.”

A Full Bench of this Court in The Registrar, Indian Maritime University (supra) held that merely because a person received the impugned order while he was working in Kerala is not sufficient to say that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. On facts, the Court also found that there was no pleading to the effect that this Court had territorial jurisdiction over the cause of action. In Dental Council of India (supra), the petitioners before the Court were practising Dental Surgeons, and their challenge was regarding the nomination of a person who was working in West Bengal Government Service to the Dental Council of India (DCI). A Division Bench of this Court referred the question whether the exercise of function by DCI throughout the territories of India would confer jurisdiction on every Court in India to challenge an election to the Dental Council which is held at New Delhi, to a Full Bench. The Full Bench held that a writ petition can be maintained only in a High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction, the person, authority or the Government against which relief is sought is situated and within whose jurisdiction the cause of action either wholly or in part has arisen and that in order to determine the said question, the fact that the authority or Government concerned has been invested with power all over the country or affecting all citizens, is not of any relevance. The Full Bench overruled the judgment of this Court in Dr. Joseph Issac v. Union of India [2010 (3) KHC 265], wherein it was held that the investiture of authority on DCI affects the entire society and all the people of the country, either directly or indirectly, and, therefore, to deny jurisdiction to this Court on the basis of location of the office of the DCI or on the belief that the seat of the office of the Government of India is located in Delhi would be a pedantic understanding of jurisdiction of the Court and unjust to the people of this country.

In Aparna Balan (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that the terms “right of action” and “cause of action” are neither synonymous nor interchangeable and that a person residing anywhere in the country, being aggrieved by an order of the Government, Central or State or authority or person, may have a right of action in law but the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 can be invoked only when the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction either wholly or in part. That was a case relating to selection of badminton players for the national team to represent India and the persons who approached the Court were badminton players of the State of Kerala. However, the selection process was held outside Kerala. A learned Single Judge of this Court in ILA Rajeev (Minor) (supra) considered a case where a selection test was conducted online and the petitioner before the Court participated from the State of Kerala. The Court held that the mere fact that the situs from where the candidate accessed the site of National Institute of Design for participating in the test was in Kerala would not confer jurisdiction to the High Court of Kerala since the selection process was conducted in the State of Gujarat.

Applying the above tests to the facts of this case, it can be seen that the members of the petitioner Forum belonged to different States across India and they had worked outside Kerala and retired from other States. A class litigation by the Forum on behalf of such persons cannot be entertained by this Court merely on the ground that the Forum has its address in Kerala. It cannot be said that any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of Kerala. It relates to benefits of service like grant of pension, and, merely because the respondent authorities are exercising jurisdiction over the entirety of India, it will not by itself confer jurisdiction on every High court in India. I hence find that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

The next question to be considered is whether the petitioner has locus standi to prefer the writ petition. In Vinoy Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that generally a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly nor substantially invaded, the exception being writ petitions seeking a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or one filed in public interest. In Tancem Marketing Employees' Welfare Union (supra), a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras held that the Secretary of an employees' union cannot maintain a writ challenging promotions allegedly made in violation of the existing promotion policy of the employer, since a writ petition can be filed only by a person who is personally aggrieved, especially in service matters.

In Viswa Hindu Pareeshath Vibhag Karyalayam (supra), a Division Bench of this Court relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2007) 10 SCC 614] and held that a public interest litigation was not maintainable in service matters relating to caste certificate. In Swakshtagrahi Sangh, Janpad Panchayat Niwas (supra), a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that an association can maintain a writ petition on behalf of the members only if it satisfies the court that if an adverse decision is given in the petition, all the members of that association will be bound by the decision, since it is always possible that an independent writ petition is filed by an individual member stating that he had not been heard and he had not authorised the association to represent him in the litigation. In Paradip Port Trust Officer Pensioners' Association (supra), the High Court of Orissa held that an association can maintain a writ petition under Article 226, espousing the cause of its members only if the members themselves are unable to approach the court by reason of poverty, disability or economically disadvantaged position and in cases where public injury leading to public interest litigation, provided the association has some concern deeper than that of a wayfarer or busybody. Reference was made to a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Secretary to Government, Chennai-9, v. Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Vocational Teachers Association [Writ Appeal No.1792 of 2017] wherein the Madras High Court had held that the association has no locus standi to approach the court for the purpose of claiming service benefits to its members. In Kerala Government Veterinary Officers Association (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that the person who is aggrieved by the transfer alone has locus standi to approach the Tribunal to challenge the order. In Kerala State Government Ayurveda Medical Officers Association (supra), another Division Bench of this Court explained the above judgment by holding that if more than one person is affected by a transfer, they can join in one petition through an association but in the said process, the individual list will have to be furnished. In All India BSNL Pensioners' Welfare Association (supra), another Division Bench of this Court held that it is settled law that an association cannot espouse the grievance of the members with regard to their service benefits, while considering the prayer for extension of revision of pension benefits to pre-2006 DOT-absorbed BSNL IDA pensioners. The Division Bench held that relief can be granted only to the individual pensioner who had approached the court. The above judgments would clearly indicate that the petitioner association cannot maintain this writ petition or espouse the cause of its members relating to their service benefits. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition can be maintained by the Association. Reliance was placed on several judgments, which are dealt with in the following paragraphs.

In Central Government Pensioner's Association (supra), a learned Single Judge considered a writ petition filed by the Central Government Pensioner's Association seeking orders restoring the commuted portion of pension after 12 years of commutation. The writ petition was entertained and the reliefs were granted. The Court held that the right to receive pension is not a bounty given by the employer. However, a reading of the judgment would show that the Court had not considered the question of maintainability of the writ petition. In All India Loco Running Staff (supra), a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court held that a writ petition by the Association for restoration of benefits which were deprived to them was maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel (supra) held that it is a well-settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the Government Department has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law in his or her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit, without the need for them to approach the Court. The said judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioner does not deal with the locus standi of an association to prefer an application or to prefer a petition espousing the cause of the members relating to their service benefits. The said judgment has no application to the facts of this case.

In Babubhai Jamnadas Patel (supra), relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Courts and the Supreme Court are sentinels of justice and have been vested with extraordinary powers of judicial review and supervision to ensure that the rights of citizens are duly protected. The said principle cannot be applied to the facts of this case. It is settled law that non-exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a matter of self-imposed restriction and this Court will not exercise jurisdiction merely because it has a power under Article 226.

In Kedar Narayan Parida (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when an illegality or a mala fide action on the part of the Investigating Authorities, is brought to the notice of the High Courts, the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent and plenary powers are entitled to intervene to set right the illegality or the mala fide action on the part of the Investigating Authorities. The said judgment also cannot be applied to the facts of this case, where an association has filed a writ petition claiming service benefits to its members, a majority of whom are from outside Kerala and relating to service rendered outside the State. In Vineet Narain (supra), relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued certain directives in exercise of its powers under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which related to code of conduct in public life. After laying down the principles, the Court held that those principles of public life are of general application in every democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of every holder of a public office. The said judgment also cannot be taken to be an authority to prove that this writ petition is maintainable.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable at the instance of the Association and also on the ground that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.