Mr. Ramalingam Sudhakar, J. - The writ petition is of the year 2001.
2. The writ petitioner challenges order dated 24.03.2001 passed by respondent No.3- Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, CISF Unit
NALCO Angul Orissa. Writ petition was admitted in the year 2001 and the response has been filed by the official respondents submitting
preliminary objections which is as follows:
Preliminary objections
1. That, the instant service writ petition is not maintainable before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir for want of lacking territorial
jurisdiction. The power to issue directions, orders or writ under Article 226 (i) of the constitution of India can be exercised by the Hon'ble High
Court exercising its jurisdictions in relation to territories within which cause of action wholly or in part arises. In the present case, while the
petitioner was posted and serving at CISF Unit BIOP Dep-05 Bacheli in the State of Chatisgarh cause of action arise there and hence Hon'ble
High Court of Bilashpur is the competent Court to hear or dispose of the instant case. The petitioner was wrongly filed service writ petition in
Hon'ble High Court of J&K at Jammu. Hence, the instant service writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of lacking territorial
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble High Court. IN the mater of CMWP No. 52276 of 1999 filed by Kedar Singh v. UOI in Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court, the Hon'ble High Court given verdict that ""the order was passed in Bihar. Courts in State of U.P. do not have any territorial jurisdiction to
hear the writ petitions with regard to orders passed in Bihar in view of the Division Bench decision of this Hon'ble High Court reported in AIR
1988, Allahabad 36 Daya Shanker Bhardwaj v. Chief of Air Staff, New Delhi and others"" and the writ petition was dismissed by Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court on 13.12.1999. Photocopy of the Court order is annexed as per Annexure ""A"".
2. That, the petitioner has failed to avail departmental remedy available for him by way of submission of his Revision Petition before the Re-
visioning Authority. He approached to this Hon'ble High Court by filing the instant service writ petition, which is premature in nature.
3. From reading of the objections, it is evident that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ petition. The
petitioner's plea that he received copy of order at Jammu would not suffice and that will not confer jurisdiction, when the entire proceeding had
taken place outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Preliminary objection is sustained for want of territorial jurisdiction.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that he should not be non-suited on the ground of limitation. It is for him to approach the competent
authority and seek for the exclusion of the period during which the writ petition was pending for the purpose of limitation.
6. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed.
