AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 3607 ::2014 AIR SCW 4713 ::2014 (4) AJR 410 ::(2014) 2 CLR 448 (SC) ::2014 (2) CLR 448 ::2014 (9) SCC 329 ::2014 (9) Scale 244 ::2014 (106) All LR 710 ::(2014) 5 Cal HN 192 ::AIR 2014 SC (Civil) 2329 ::(2015) 1 Mad LW 810 ::(2014) 4 JCR 315 (SC) ::(2014) 4 JLJR 69 ::(2014) 4 Pat LJR 227 ::2014 (4) SCT 129 ::(2015) 2 ServLR 623 ::(2014) 3 ServLJ 175 ::(2014) 142 AllIndCas 193 (SC) ::(2014) 5 All WC 4947

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Patna)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Ranjan Gogoi, M. Y. Eqbal , JJ

Constitution of India , Art.226(2)— Territorial jurisdiction - Petition claiming disability compensation filed by appellant in his native place i.e. State of Bihar - Appellant, seaman suffered from serious heart muscle disease which forced him to stay in native place - Order cancelling his registration as seaman passed in Mumbai - Appellant made all his correspondence regarding his disability compensation from his native place - Part or fraction of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of Patna High Court - Dismissal of writ petition by High Court for want of jurisdiction - Not proper. Order of Patna High Court dated 16-4-2013, Reversed. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limit of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court's jurisdiction. In the present case, appellant appointed by the Corporation on the post of seaman for off-shore services and discharging his duty outside the territory of the State of Bihar was declared unfit for sea service due to heart problem (organic ailment) and....