The Court finds no part of the cause of action within its jurisdiction, directing petitioner to seek remedy in appropriate court.
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Anand Sharma, has dismissed a civil writ petition filed by Vikas Wadhwa against Punjab and Sind Bank, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. The judgment, delivered on April 21, 2026, clarifies the application of Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning territorial jurisdiction based on the cause of action.
Vikas Wadhwa, the petitioner, had approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to quash a suspension order dated March 20, 2026, and to direct the bank to allow him to resume duties at the Moga Zone. However, the respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Balia, contested the maintainability of the petition, emphasizing that neither the petitioner's residence nor the issuance of the suspension order fell within the territorial limits of Rajasthan.
The Court scrutinized the arguments, noting that the petitioner is stationed in Moga, Punjab, and the suspension order was issued by the Deputy General Manager (HRD) from the bank's head office in New Delhi. Justice Sharma emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is determined by the situs of the cause of action, which must consist of material facts integral to the relief sought. Mere incidental facts, such as the petitioner's residence, do not suffice to confer jurisdiction.
The judgment drew upon precedents from both the Supreme Court and earlier rulings of the Rajasthan High Court, underscoring that jurisdiction is grounded in the location where the cause of action arises, not merely on the parties' locations or the communication of orders.
Citing cases like Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd., the Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is contingent upon foundational facts being pleaded and demonstrated within the territorial limits. In this instance, the Court found that the integral facts related to the suspension order were outside its jurisdiction.
The dismissal of the petition underscores the principle that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or incidental compliance with interim directions. The petitioner, Vikas Wadhwa, was advised to seek appropriate remedy in a competent court with jurisdiction over the matter.
Justice Sharma's ruling reiterates the importance of establishing clear jurisdictional grounds when invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted within the correct territorial framework.
Bottom line:-
A High Court's territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is determined by the situs of the cause of action, wholly or in part, and not by incidental or ancillary facts such as the residential address of the petitioner or prior events indirectly related to the relief sought.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Vikas Wadhwa v. Punjab and Sind Bank, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc id # 2887557
