//
you're reading...
legal issues

Writ Petition – Territorial Jurisdiction – Disability compensation – was refused while he was in Gaya – As per interim order compensation was paid at Patna – at final hearing Patna High court dismissed the Writ – Apex court held that Prima facie, therefore, considering all the facts together, a part or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court where he received a letter of refusal disentitling him from disability compensation.in our considered opinion, the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. As noticed above, at the time when the writ petition was heard for the purpose of grant of interim relief, the respondents instead of raising any objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction opposed the prayer on the ground that the writ petitioner- appellant was offered an amount of Rs.2.75 lakhs, but he refused to accept the same and challenged the order granting severance compensation by filing the writ petition. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.=CIVIL APPEAL NO.7414 OF 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No.19549 of 2013) Nawal Kishore Sharma ….Appellant(s) Versus Union of India and Others …Respondent(s) = 2014 Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41814

   Writ Petition – Territorial Jurisdiction –  Disability compensation – was refused while he was in Gaya – As per interim order compensation was paid at Patna – at final hearing Patna High court dismissed the Writ – Apex court held that Prima facie, therefore, considering all the  facts  together, a part or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction  of  the Patna High Court where he received a  letter  of  refusal  disentitling  him from disability compensation.in  our  considered opinion, the writ petition ought not to have  been  dismissed  for  want  of

territorial jurisdiction.  As noticed above,  at  the  time  when  the  writ petition was  heard  for  the  purpose  of  grant  of  interim  relief,  the respondents instead of raising any  objection  with  regard  to  territorial jurisdiction opposed the prayer on the  ground  that  the  writ  petitioner-

appellant was offered an amount of Rs.2.75 lakhs, but he refused  to  accept the same and challenged the order granting severance compensation by  filing the writ petition.  The impugned order, therefore, cannot  be  sustained  in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.=

We have perused the facts pleaded in the writ petition  and  the

documents  relied  upon  by  the  appellant.

Indisputably,  the  appellant

reported sickness on account of various  ailments  including  difficulty  in

breathing.  He was referred to hospital.

Consequently, he  was  signed  off

for  further  medical  treatment.   Finally,  the   respondent   permanently

declared the appellant unfit for sea service due to  dilated  cardiomyopathy

(heart muscles disease).

As  a  result,  the  Shipping  Department  of  the

Government  of  India  issued  an  order   on   12.4.2011   cancelling   the

registration of the appellant as a seaman.  A copy of the  letter  was  sent

to the appellant at his native place in Bihar where he was staying after  he

was found medically unfit.

It further appears that  the  appellant  sent  a

representation from his home  in  the  State  of  Bihar  to  the  respondent

claiming disability compensation.

The said representation  was  replied  by

the respondent, which was addressed to him on  his  home  address  in  Gaya,

Bihar rejecting his  claim  for  disability  compensation.   

It  is  further

evident that when the  appellant  was  signed  off  and  declared  medically

unfit, he returned back to his home in the  District  of  Gaya,  Bihar  and,

thereafter, he made all  claims  and  filed  representation  from  his  home

address at Gaya and those letters and representations  were  entertained  by

the respondents and replied and a decision  on  those  representations  were

communicated to him on his home address  in  Bihar.

Admittedly,  appellant

was suffering from serious heart muscles  disease  (Dilated  Cardiomyopathy)

and breathing problem which forced him to stay in  native  place,  wherefrom

he had  been  making  all  correspondence  with  regard  to  his  disability

compensation.

Prima facie, therefore, considering all the  facts  together,

a part or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction  of  the

Patna High Court where he received a  letter  of  refusal  disentitling  him

from disability compensation.

21.   Apart from that, from the counter affidavit  of  the  respondents  and

the documents annexed therewith, it reveals that  after  the  writ  petition

was filed in the Patna High Court, the  same  was  entertained  and  notices

were issued.

Pursuant to the said  notice,  the  respondents  appeared  and

participated in the proceedings in the High Court.

It further reveals  that

after hearing the counsel appearing for both the  parties,  the  High  Court

passed an interim order on 18.9.2012 directing the authorities  of  Shipping

Corporation of India to pay at least a sum of Rs.2.75 lakhs, which shall  be

subject to the result of the writ petition.

Pursuant to the  interim  order,

the respondent Shipping Corporation of India remitted  Rs.2,67,270/-  (after

deduction of income tax) to the bank account  of  the  appellant.  

However,

when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the  High  Court  took  the

view that no cause of action, not even a fraction of cause  of  action,  has

arisen within its territorial jurisdiction.

22.   Considering  the  entire  facts  of  the  case  narrated  hereinbefore

including the interim order passed by the  High  Court,  in  our  considered

opinion, the writ petition ought not to have  been  dismissed  for  want  of

territorial jurisdiction.

As noticed above,  at  the  time  when  the  writ

petition was  heard  for  the  purpose  of  grant  of  interim  relief,  the

respondents instead of raising any  objection  with  regard  to  territorial

jurisdiction opposed the prayer on the  ground  that  the  writ  petitioner-

appellant was offered an amount of Rs.2.75 lakhs, but he refused  to  accept

the same and challenged the order granting severance compensation by  filing

the writ petition.  The impugned order, therefore, cannot  be  sustained  in

the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

23.  In the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and the impugned  order  passed

by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High  Court

for deciding the writ petition on merits.

2014 Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41814

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,853,215 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,868 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com