C. Ramesh vs The Director General of Police and The Inspector General of Police

The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and legally act upon the petitioner''s representation, dated 21.05.2013 by obtaining sanction and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner has filed a representation on 21.05.2013 stating that Mr. N. Narayanaswamy, Minister of State, in the Prime Minister''s office has made some remarks against late Thiru. Velupillai Prabhakaran and Thiru. Seeman and the said remarks were made at Puducherry. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his submissions stated that the Minister has made the remarks at Madurantakam also.

We have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the averments made in the affidavit and the accompanying documents.

It is relevant here to mention that in his affidavit nowhere the petitioner has stated that the Minister had made such a statement at Madurantakam. Madurantakam has been mentioned only by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of his arguments. But, there is no averments either in his affidavit or in any document to that effect. However, from the newspaper cutting enclosed with the writ petition, it is seen that the Minister has made such a statement at Puducherry.

Under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Indian High Courts were constitutionally empowered to issue prerogative Writs. In view of the vastness of a State and for various other reasons, from the Principal seat of the High Court, Benches of the High Court are formed. Those Benches were annexed with certain number of Districts, over which, the Bench exercises jurisdiction, i.e., territorial jurisdiction.

In pursuance of Section 52(2) of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, by issuing the Presidential Order, ''the Madras High Court (Establishment of Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004'' has been promulgated establishing a permanent seat of the Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai. 13 Southern Districts of the State have been annexed to the Bench, over which, this Bench has territorial jurisdiction. [See V. Subramanian Vs. Union of India, Rep. By Its V. Subramanian Vs. Union of India (UOI), The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Madurai Bar Association and K. Sultan Allowdhin, Executive President, All India Lawyers'' Union, Madurai District Committee,

Exercise of jurisdiction is based on arising of the cause of action, either in whole or in part in any one of the said Revenue Districts. [See Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association Vs. Union of India and Others, and B. Stalin Vs. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110 001, The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai-104, The Joint Registrar-cum-Private Secretary to the Hon''ble Chief Justice, Madras High Court, Chennai-104 and The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23,

It should be remembered that the part of cause of action must be substantial in nature. The territorial jurisdiction of the Court is linked with the place of accrual of cause of action. [See U.P. Rashtriya Chinni Mills Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. and others,

Referring to Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, a Full Bench of this Court in Sanjos Jewellers Vs. Syndicate Bank, , held as under:-

We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the Doctrine of forum convenience. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga Vs. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, ; Madanlal Jalan Vs. Madanlal and others ; Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Vs. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage Private Ltd., S.S. Jain and Co. Vs. Union of India (UOI), and M/s. New Horizons Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others, ].

Question of entertaining a lis disclosing a cause of action or part of cause of action is based on the averments contained in the affidavit etc. At that stage, the truth or otherwise of the averments need not be gone into. But, there must be necessary averments disclosing a cause of action, so that the Court can take cognizance of/entertaining the lis exposed in the petition for taking further action. [See Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others,

A Court cannot arrogate/assume/confer upon itself a jurisdiction-territorial jurisdiction, when it has no such jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction to entertain a matter goes to the root of the matter, otherwise whatever action taken or orders passed by the Court becomes a nullity, it is non est and of no consequence at all resulting in wasting of precious public time. Courts are barred from indulging in hypothetic and academic exercises.

In the light of the above, let us revert back to the petitioner''s case. As already stated at the out set, there is no clear cut, straight averments in the affidavit of the petitioner as to how this Court/Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, has jurisdiction to entertain this matter. However, we could able to gauge what had transpired in the mind of the petitioner in filing this writ petition by looking at the paper cutting enclosed with the petition. As already stated, in the newspaper, in clear cut terms, it is reported that on 20.05.2013 the Minister has made such a statement in the Union Territory of Puducherry. This has also been stated in the petitioner''s representation, dated 21.05.2013, said to have been sent to the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai. The Union Territory of Puducherry is not one of the Districts, over which, this Bench of the Madras High Court exercises jurisdiction.

The Minister is said to have committed an offence on 20.05.2013 in Puducherry. Over the Union Territory of Puducherry, this Bench of the Madras High Court has no territorial jurisdiction. As per the decisions already cited, substantial part of the cause of action/offence alleged should have taken place within any one of the Revenue Districts attached to this Bench of the Madras High Court. It must also be remembered that as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court even if a small part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court that itself is not sufficient for the Court to entertain a matter.

Thus, from the foregoing, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained, as this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over Union Territory of Puducherry or the District of Kancheepuram. Therefore, this petition is dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction. No costs.

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the competent Court, if he has any enforceable right and if he is so advised. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of Special Leave to appeal to the Hon''ble Supreme Court. As the jurisdiction limit is not in dispute, we are not inclined to grant Leave and the said request is rejected.