Uttarakhand High Court
Pawan Kumar Jaiswal vs District Magistrate/District … on 9 June, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1454 of 2025
Pawan Kumar Jaiswal ........Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate/District Collector and others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the
communication dated 20.03.2025, by the respondent no.3, In-Charge
Officer (Collection), Dehradun. By it, the letter dated 13.02.2025 of
the respondent no.4, the Collector, District Ujjain has been forwarded
to the Tehsildar, Dehradun for recovery. The challenge has also been
made to the recovery citations issued by the respondent no.2,
Tehsildar, Dehradun.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly
stated, are as follows:-
(i) The petitioner was allotted a liquor shop in District
Ujjain in the year 2015-2016. Subsequently, his
license was cancelled on 05.01.2016.
(ii) The proceedings taken by the Excise Department
against the petitioner was challenged by the
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 568 of 2016, in the
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at
2Indore (“the first petition), which was decided on
13.05.2016. The Court had then observed that
“when the contract is already over, it is not proper
when we should exercise the restricted jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
(iii) Again demand notice on 16.08.2016 and a recovery
citation dated 07.11.2016 was issued against the
petitioner, which was challenged by the petitioner
in Writ Petition No. 8435 of 2016, before the
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench
Indore, which was decided on 14.02.2017 (“the
second petition”). The Court had quashed the
demand notice dated 16.08.2016 as well as
recovery citation dated 07.11.2016. The
respondents were then given liberty to take fresh
action, in accordance with law.
(iv) A recovery citation was issued against the
petitioner by the respondent no.4, Collector,
District Ujjain to the respondent no.1, District
Magistrate, Dehradun. Then objections were raised
by the petitioner that it is not permissible, in view
of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Court in
second petition. Accordingly, on 20.05.2019, the
recovery citation was returned by the respondent
no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun.
(v) Now again, it is the case of the petitioner that on
13.02.2025, nullifying the earlier orders of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the first
petition and the second petition, fresh letter was
3
written by the respondent no.4, Collector, District
Ujjain to the respondent no.1, District Magistrate,
Dehradun for recovery which was endorsed by the
respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun to
the respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Dehradun, who
thereafter, issued recovery citations, which are
impugned.
4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from
learned counsel for the petitioner, as to how, this Court can entertain
this petition, keeping in view the aspect of territorial jurisdiction?
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would raise the
following points:-
(i) Earlier on two occasions, when the respondent
no.4, the Collector, District Ujjain had initiated
recovery proceedings against the petitioner, they
were successfully challenged by the petitioner in
the first petition and the second petition.
(ii) Thereafter, once again, in the year 2019, the
respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain has
initiated the process of recovery which was
returned by the respondent no.1, District
Magistrate, Dehradun, keeping in view the order
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Indore Bench, in the second petition.
4
(iii) The initial action of the respondent no.4, the
Collector, District Ujjain was not found
inconformity with law by the Hon’ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in the first petition
and the second petition.
(iv) Knowing this fact, third time a communication has
been sent by the respondent no.4, Collector,
District Ujjain to the respondent no.1, District
Magistrate, Dehradun for initiating recovery which
is bad in the eye of law.
6. The petitioner has challenged the communication dated
20.03.2025 of the respondent no.3, In-Charge Officer (Collection),
Dehradun. By which, the communication dated 13.02.2025 of the
respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain has been marked to
Tehsildar and the petitioner has also challenged the subsequent
recovery citation issued by the respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Dehradun.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
action of the respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Dehradun and the
respondent no.3, In-Charge Officer (Collection) has been originated
within the jurisdiction of this Court. They form cause of action to file
the writ petition. This cause of action has accrued within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The property said to be attached
falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The impugned
communication dated 20.03.2025 of the respondent no.3, In-Charge
Officer (Collection) is not issued by a competent officer.
8. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed
reliance on the principles of law, as laid down in the cases of Om
5
Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another, (2006) 6 SCC 207
and Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 9
SCC 329.
9. In the case of Om Prakash Srivastava (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has discussed the scope of territorial jurisdiction and
in para 8 observed as follows:-
“8. Two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution on plain
reading give clear indication that the High Court can exercise power
to issue direction, order or writs for the enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for
any other purpose if the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen
within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction
notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the
residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is
issued is not within the said territories. (See ONGC v. Utpal Kumar
Basu [(1994) 4 SCC 711] .)”
10. In the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) also the
Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the law on this point and in para
14 and 15 observed as follows:-
“14. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India [(2006) 6
SCC 207 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 24] , answering a similar question this
Court observed that on a plain reading of clause (2) of Article 226 it
is manifestly clear that the High Court can exercise power to issue
direction, order or writs for the enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights or for any other purpose if the cause of action in
relation to which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding that the
seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person
against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the
said territory. In para 7 this Court observed: (SCC p. 210)
“7. The question whether or not cause of action wholly
or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the
territorial limits 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, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right
claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is
threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the
territorial limits of the Court’s jurisdiction and such
6infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or
threat thereof.”
15. In Rajendran Chingaravelu v. CIT [(2010) 1 SCC 457 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 810] , this Court while considering the scope of
Article 226(2) of the Constitution, particularly the cause of action in
maintaining a writ petition, held as under: (SCC p. 461, paras 9 &
11)
“9. The first question that arises for consideration is
whether the Andhra Pradesh High Court was justified in
holding that as the seizure took place at Chennai (Tamil
Nadu), the appellant could not maintain the writ petition
before it. The High Court did not examine whether any part of
cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh. Clause (2) of Article
226 makes it clear that the High Court exercising jurisdiction
in relation to the territories within which the cause of action
arises wholly or in part, will have jurisdiction. This would
mean that even if a small fraction of the cause of action (that
bundle of facts which gives a petitioner, a right to sue)
accrued within the territories of Andhra Pradesh, the High
Court of that State will have jurisdiction.”
11. Learned State counsel would submit that no part of cause of
action has arisen within jurisdiction of this Court. It falls within the
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. He would submit
that after the order passed in the second petition on 14.02.2017 by Hon’ble
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the deficiency has been corrected and the
respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain in his communication dated
13.02.2025 has recorded that now deficiency in the earlier demand notice
and the recovery citations has been cured.
12. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is beyond
the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is accepted. Sub Clause (2) of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India makes a specific provision in this
regard as follows:-
“(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions,
orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be
exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the
territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises
for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
7Government or authority or the residence of such person is not
within those territories.”
13. This Court is not adverting to the merits of this case. To
the limited extent of entertaining this writ petition on the aspect of
territorial jurisdiction, this discussion is being made.
14. What is to be seen as to whether the cause of action
wholly or in part has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court. The cause of action means every fact, which it would be
necessary for the party to prove, if traversed, in order to support his
right to the judgment of the court. In the case of Om Prakash
Srivastava (supra), this expression has been explained by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as follows:-
“12. The expression “cause of action” has acquired a
judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense “cause of action”
means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the
immediate occasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it means the
necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not
only the infraction of the right, but also the infraction coupled with
the right itself. Compendiously, as noted above, the expression
means every fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to
prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of
the court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as
distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to
prove each fact, comprises in “cause of action”. (See Rajasthan High
Court Advocates’ Assn. v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 294] .)
13. The expression “cause of action” has sometimes been
employed to convey the restricted idea of facts or circumstances
which constitute either the infringement or the basis of a right and
no more. In a wider and more comprehensive sense, it has been used
to denote the whole bundle of material facts, which a plaintiff must
prove in order to succeed. These are all those essential facts without
8
the proof of which the plaintiff must fail in his suit. (See Gurdit
Singh v. Munsha Singh [(1977) 1 SCC 791] .)”
15. In the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. M/s
Swaika Properties and another, (1985) 3 SCC 2017, a notice under
sub-Section (2) of Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement
Act, 1959 was served on a party at their registered office in Calcutta.
This notice was challenged in the petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the relief could have been sought
before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. Hon’ble Court observed that
“the notification dated February 8,1984 issued by the State
Government under Section 52 (1) of the Act became effective the
moment it was published in the Official Gazettee as thereupon
the notified land became vested in the State Government free
from all encumbrances. It was not necessary for the respondents
to plead the service of notice on them by the Special Officer.”
The Court also observed that “the entire cause of action
culminating in the acquisition of the land under Section 52 (1) of
the Act arose within the State of Rajasthan i.e. within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at the Jaipur
Bench.”
16. In the instant case, twice the demand notice and recovery
proceedings initiated by the respondent no.4, the Collector, District
Ujjain had already been challenged by the petitioner before the
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in the first
petition and the second petition which were decided on 13.05.2016
and 14.02.2017 respectively. At present, the actions that were
initiated by the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun,
9
respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Dehradun and the respondent no.3, In-
Charge Officer (Collection) has its origin to the communication dated
13.02.2025 of the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain, by
which a request for recovery has been made. In fact, the cause of
action has been culminated in Ujjain within the territorial jurisdiction
of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh,. Whatever action has been taken by the
respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun, the respondent no.2,
Tehsildar, Dehradun and the respondent no.3, In-Charge Officer
(Collection) that is for compliance of the communication dated
13.02.2025, issued by the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain,
which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
17. It may be noted that earlier, a recovery citation was
returned by the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun to
the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain on 28.05.2019 on the
ground that the recovery is not in compliance with the direction of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed in the second petition.
In the second petition, the demand notice and the recovery citations
were set aside as was held that they were not issued by the officer
competent to do so. Now, the respondent no.4, Collector, District
Ujjain writes to the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun
that the deficiencies have been removed and the processes have been
issued by the competent officer. It means that the cause of action had
culminated in Madhya Pradesh, the moment letter dated 13.02.2025
was issued by the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain. It
cannot be said that in the present case, any part of cause of action
has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In view of it,
the writ petition may not be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage.
10
18. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
09.06.2025
Jitendra