Summary
The Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) over a writ petition by a BSF (or other CAPF) member challenging termination of service, because the Union of India and the Director General have their offices in Delhi. Where a petitioner invokes clause (1) and chooses the forum convenient to the respondents, the doctrine of forum non conveniens should rarely be applied. The Delhi High Court's refusal to entertain the petition was set aside and the petition revived.
Issues
- Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) over a writ petition by a BSF member challenging his dismissal when the dismissal order and the rejection of his statutory petition were issued outside Delhi.
- Whether the Delhi High Court was justified in declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground of forum non conveniens.
- Whether an appeal lies against the dismissal of a review petition.
Provisions considered
- Article 226(1) and (2), Constitution of IndiaClause (1) confers writ jurisdiction where the respondent authority is located and clause (2) where the cause of action arises wholly or in part. The Court held that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under clause (1) because of the situs of the Union and the Director General, BSF, while the Calcutta, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, and Allahabad High Courts had jurisdiction under clause (2). (¶¶ 6, 17, 21, 27, 32, 33, 34, 37)
- Rule 22, Border Security Force Rules, 1969The appellant was dismissed under Rules 22 and 177; the Court relied on Rule 22(4), which requires every dismissal or removal to be reported to the Director General, as one factor linking the case to Delhi and showing that the records would be available with the respondents. (¶¶ 3, 21, 37)
- Rule 28A, Border Security Force Rules, 1969The statutory petition of an enrolled person lies to the Inspector General; it was rejected by the Inspector General at Jammu, so part of the cause of action arose within that High Court's jurisdiction. (¶¶ 3, 33)
- Sections 4 and 5, Border Security Force Act, 1968Read with Ranjeet Mal, these provisions were relied on to hold that the Union of India and the Director General, BSF, both based in New Delhi, were necessary parties to a petition challenging dismissal from the Force. (¶ 21)
- Rule 6, Armed Forces Tribunal Rules, 2008Because Rule 6 regulates where applications by armed forces personnel are filed, the Court held that Dinesh Chandra Gahtori, which allowed the Chief of Army Staff to be sued anywhere, has no relevance after the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. (¶ 26)
Held
- To reconcile Abrar Ali, Eastern Coalfields v. Kalyan Banerjee and Dinesh Chandra Gahtori, the Court held that where a CAPF member, including a BSF member, challenges an administrative order terminating service, the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) because of the situs of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General, even if the order was issued, or the triggering events occurred, outside Delhi. (¶¶ 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- The Union of India and the Director General, BSF, both based in New Delhi, were necessary parties. Rule 22(4) of the BSF Rules requires dismissal orders to be reported to the Director General, and official acts are presumed regularly performed, so the Delhi High Court was competent to try the petition. Here the High Court had in fact relied on forum non conveniens rather than lack of jurisdiction. (¶¶ 21, 22, 34)
- Forum non conveniens applies only where several fora can grant the same remedy; a court that can legally hear the case may then decline and leave the suitor to a more appropriate forum. Arif Azim did not arise from writ proceedings, and Kusum Ingots concerned causes of action arising in more than one High Court, not the situs of the respondent's office. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 36)
- Where writ jurisdiction is invoked under Article 226(1), forum non conveniens may rarely apply. In certiorari proceedings the records are with the respondents or readily obtainable, and a petitioner who has chosen the forum convenient to the respondents should not be turned away, since that would deny rather than advance access to justice. The Division Bench misapplied the doctrine. (¶¶ 35, 37, 38)
- No appeal lies against an order dismissing a review petition, so the appeal against the review order was not maintainable. (¶ 39)
Result
Appeal against the order of 10.01.2025 allowed and that order set aside, reviving the writ petition in the Delhi High Court for decision on merits; respondents given two months to file a counter affidavit and the appellant one month thereafter for a rejoinder. Appeal against the review order dismissed as not maintainable.