AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as also the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5.
The writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioner as also respondent No. 5, whose selection had
been questioned in the writ petition, were working for gain in Jammu Province and that the writ petition has been filed without permission of the
Chief Justice to file the same in the Srinagar Wing of this Court. It was contended by the appellant before the learned Single Judge that the
selection, which has been questioned, was made by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission at Srinagar. This fact has not been
questioned in the judgment and order under appeal.
Article 226 of the Constitution of India empowers filing of a proceeding thereunder in any such High Court in relation to the territories within
which the cause of action wholly, or in part, arises for the exercise of such power. Section 103 of the State Constitution authorises this Court to
exercise similar power. In terms of Section 101 of the State Constitution, place of sitting of this Court is at Jammu and Srinagar. In terms of the
mandate contained in the Constitution of India and the State Constitution, if part of the cause of action arises within such place of sitting of the
Court, that Wing of the Court is entitled to receive an application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the
State Constitution, and for that matter, no leave of the Chief Justice is required. Only in such a case, where no part of cause of action arises within
the jurisdiction of that Wing of the High Court, but the petition is sought to be filed in that Wing, the leave of the Chief Justice is necessary.
We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal and remit back the matter to the Writ Court for fresh
decision.