Jurisdictional Boundaries in Writ Petitions: Delhi High Court’s Ruling on Territorial Authority.


11 November 2024 Civil Procedure Code Jurisdiction >> Constitution & Law Procedure  

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the refusal of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and a school in Bihar to correct the petitioner’s father’s name in her academic certificates. The Court based its decision on territorial jurisdiction, affirming that it did not have the authority to hear the case.

The petitioner, a woman born in 1999, approached the Delhi High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the CBSE and her school, Goethal’s Public School in Bhagalpur, Bihar, to correct the name of her father on her academic certificates. The petitioner explained that she had been raised by her maternal uncle, Mr. Diamond Khan, and his name had been mistakenly listed as her father’s on official documents. The biological father, Mr. Mirza Mabood Beg, had been mistakenly excluded. Despite the petitioner’s efforts to rectify this issue, including publishing an article in The Gazette of India declaring Mr. Beg as her biological father and sending multiple requests to the school and CBSE’s regional office in Patna, Bihar, no resolution was forthcoming, compelling her to approach the Delhi High Court.

 
 
 
 

The CBSE opposed the petition on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the issue related to a school located in Bihar, and the regional office of CBSE was also situated in Patna. It contended that the appropriate forum for the petition would be the High Court of Patna, as no part of the cause of action arose within Delhi’s jurisdiction. The CBSE further highlighted a letter written by the petitioner’s maternal uncle, where he confirmed that the petitioner’s birth certificate had inaccurately recorded his name as her father, despite objections from Mr. Beg.

In response, the petitioner’s counsel argued that because the CBSE's head office is located in Delhi, the jurisdictional issue should be addressed by the Delhi High Court. However, the Court found that merely because the CBSE's head office was in Delhi, it did not automatically confer jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court emphasized that no part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction, as both the school and the CBSE’s regional office were located in Bihar.

The Court referred to precedents, including the judgment in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004), where it was held that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within a particular jurisdiction, it does not automatically compel that court to hear the case. The Court also cited the concept of forum conveniens from State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd. (2023), reinforcing that a court may decline jurisdiction if a more appropriate forum exists.

The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction, making it clear that the merits of the case were not considered. The petitioner was given the liberty to approach the appropriate court with jurisdiction in Bihar for further redressal.

This judgment reiterates the principle that territorial jurisdiction is a fundamental requirement for courts to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It also underscores the importance of approaching the proper forum for the resolution of disputes.