Arpit Singh v. Union of India Thru. Its Director General, I.T.B.P. Thru. the Ministry of Home Affairs and 6 Others

Court No. - 20 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7843 of 2023 Petitioner :- Arpit Singh Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Its Director General, I.T.B.P. Thru. The Ministry Of Home Affairs And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Tripathi,Rajeev Mishra,Vinay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. S. B. Pandey, Senior Advocate, Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Varun Pandey, learned counsel for opposite parties 1 to 5. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite parties 6 and 7 stand dispensed with.

¶2Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite party no.2 i.e. Deputy Director General (Establishment), Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, Block-2, Central Officer Premises, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03 to make an independent enquiry against opposite parties 5 and 6 and to take appropriate action on representation made by petitioner against aforesaid officers.

¶3At the very outset, learned counsel for opposite parties has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition before this Court at Lucknow in view of fact that not even part cause of action accrues before this Court since all the relief sought is with regard to officials posted in Delhi.

¶4In response thereto, learned counsel for petitioner submits that since opposite party no.7 is posted in Raebareli, part cause of action would accrue before this Court.

¶5Upon consideration of submissions advanced by earned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident that petitioner has lodged some complaint against opposite parties 6 and 7. It is the case of petitioner that opposite party no.2 is the only competent authority for initiating action on complaint made by petitioner. It is also evident that not only opposite party no.2 but even opposite party no.6 are in New Delhi with opposite party no.7 only being posted in Raebareli.

¶6There is no indication as to how part cause of action would accrue before this Court only on the basis of current posting of opposite party no.7 since action has to be taken by an authority posted in Delhi.

¶7The petition is also silent with regard to any part cause of action arising within territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

¶8In view of aforesaid, the petition not being maintainable before this Court is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.10.2023 kvg/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench