Holding

A writ petition can be entertained only if the cause of action, or the alleged infringement, arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court; the Delhi High Court should have declined jurisdiction rather than merely suggesting another court could be more effective.

Summary

Om Prakash Srivastava, extradited from Singapore, filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court under Article 226 alleging violation of the Extradition Act and inhuman prison conditions in Uttar Pradesh. The Delhi High Court held that it might have jurisdiction but that the Allahabad High Court could more effectively deal with the grievances, without expressly stating that no part of the cause of action arose within its territory. The Supreme Court held that a writ petitioner must demonstrate that the alleged infringement or threat thereof occurs within the territorial limits of the High Court, and that the lower court erred by merely suggesting another forum could be more effective. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s order and remitted the matter to it for fresh consideration on merits. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226.
Whether the cause of action for the alleged violation of the Extradition Act and prison conditions arose within the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 20
Extradition Act, 1962s. 21

Subjects

Article 226Territorial jurisdictionCause of actionWrit petitionExtradition ActPrison conditionsHigh Court jurisdiction

Judgment

-._
OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

JULY 24, 2006

[ARIJIT PASAYA T AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 226-Writ petition filed in Delhi High Court raising issues
relating to conditions ofprisoners in the State of UP.-Disposing of the writ C
petition, Delhi High Court observed that it may have jurisdiction, but the
issues can be more effectively dealt with by the Allahabad High Court-
Correctness of-Held: This is not a correct way of dealing with the petition
-Delhi High Court ought to have said that no part of the cause of action
had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction-ft did not say so-Hence matter D
remitted to Delhi High Court for fresh consideration.

Article 226-Writ petition-Maintainability-Territorial jurisdiction -
Held: Petitioner is required to establish that a legal right claimed by him
has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed within
territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction. E
Words and phrases:

Cause of action-Meaning of-Discussed-Code of Civil Procedure,
1908-Section 20.
F
Appellant had come to India by way of extradition from Singapore. He
was facing trial in eight cases. He filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High
Court taking the stand that he was being tried in several cases contrary to
the extradition decree and that he was being kept in solitary confinement
without proper medical aid in the Central Jail in the State of U.P. High Court
disposed of the Writ Petition holding that the Allahabad High Court would G
also have jurisdiction to deal with the grievances of the writ petitioner and
can deal with conditions of prisoners in that State more effectively, though
the Delhi High Court may have jurisdiction.

803 H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that merely because he had
a choice of going before the Allahabad High Court, the Delhi High Court
should not have refused to consider the writ petition.

Respondent contended that no part of the cause of action had arisen in
Delhi and the Delhi High Court has rightly observed that the appellant can
B pursue his remedy before the Allahabad High Court.

Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to Delhi High Court,
the Court

HELD: I.I. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in
C 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
D the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and
such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat
thereof. 1807-G-H; 808-AI

1.2. Two clauses of Article 226 on plain reading give clear indication
that the High Court can exercise power to issue direction, order or writs for
E the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part Ill 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. 1808-B-Cj
F
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors., 119941
4 sec 711, relied on.

2.1 By "cause of action" it is meant every fact, which, if traversed, it
would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to
G a judgment of the Co•1rt. In a generic and wide sense (as in Section 20 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908) "cause of action" means every fact, which it is
necessary to establish to support a right to obtain a judgment. 1808-D, El

Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai and Ors., 119941 6 SCC
H 322 and Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, [19981 6 SCC 514,
OM PRAKASH SR!V ASTAV Av. U.O .I. 805
relied on. A
2.2. It is settled law that "cause of action" consists of bundle of facts,
which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. It
must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an
act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. The expression
"cause of action" has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted B
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 m<tintenance of the suit, including
not only the infraction of the right, but also the infraction coupled with the
right itself. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from C
every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in
"cause of action". 1808-F-H; 809-A]

South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
and Ors., 1199613 SCC 443; Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association
v. Union of India and Ors., [2001) 2 SCC 294 and Gurdit Singh v. Munsha D
Singh, [1977) l SCC 791, relied on.

2.3. The expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean
a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a
court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases
of suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in E
court from another person. (Black's Law Dictionary). In Stroud's Judicial
Dictionary a "cause of action" is slated to be the entire set of facts that gives
rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which if
traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. In "Words.
and Phrases" (4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase "cause of action" F
in common legal parlance is existence of those facts, which give a party a
right to judicial interference on his behalf. [809-C~EI

Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and Ors .. [2000) 7
SCC 640 and Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian, AIR (1949) PC
78, relied on. G

Payana v. Pana Lana, (1914) 41 IA 142, referred to.

3. In the instant case the High Court has not dealt with the question as
to whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the writ petition. It only observed
that the Delhi High Court may have jurisdiction, but the issues relating to H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A conditions of prisoners in the State of U.P. can be more effectively dealt with
by the Allahabad High Court. There were two grievances by the appellant.
But only one of them i.e. the alleged lack of medical facilities has been referred
to by the High Court. It was open to the Delhi High Court to say that no part
of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi
High Court. The High Court in the impugned order does not say so. On the
B contrary, it says that jurisdiction may be there, but the Allahabad High Court
can deal with the matter more effectively. That is not certainly a correct way
to deal with the writ petition.1810-G-H; 811-A-B]
..-
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 786 of2006.
c From the Order dated 7.10.2005 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi,
in Criminal Writ Petition No. 201/2005.

Deepak A. Masih and R.N. Keshwani for the Appeallnt.

D Sahdev Singh, Raj Singh Rana, A. Sharan and Ms. Anil Katiyar for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARJJIT PASA YAT, J. Leave granted.
E Appellant calls in question legality of the order passed by a learned
Single Judge of the Delhi High Court disposing of the Writ Petition (W.P. (Crl.)
No. 201/2005) filed by the appellant holding that the Allahabad High Court
would have also jurisdiction to deal with grievance of the writ petitioner and
can deal with conditions of prisoners in that State more effectively, though
F the Delhi High Court may have jurisdiction.
Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows:

Appellant had filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court taking
the stand that he was being tried in several cases contrary to the extradition
G decree. Appellant came to India by way of extradition from Singapore. Presently,
the appellant was facing trial in eight cases which is in complete violation of
the provisions of Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (in short the 'Extradition
Act'). He had also pleaded that he was being kept in solitary confinement
without proper medical aid in the Central Jail in the State of U.P. It is to be
H noted that the appellant had filed the Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 54 of2005 before 1a
this Court which was withdrawn by him in order to enable him to move
OM PRAKASHSRIVASTAVA v. U.O .!. [PASA YAT,J.] 807
appropriate High Court for redressal of his grievances, if any. Appellant had A
filed a writ petition as afore-noted in the Delhi High Court which came to be
disposed of by the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the choice of the High
Court is entirely that of the writ petitioner. It is not in dispute that in terms
of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') B
the appellant could file the writ petition in Delhi High Court. Merely because
he had a choice of going before the Allahabad High Court, the Delhi High
... Court should not have refused to consider the writ petition stating that the
Allahabad High Court can deal with conditions of prisoners in the State of
Uttar Pradesh more effectively. It is submitted that the basic grievance of the
appellant related to alleged violation of the terms ofExtradition Act as provided
c
in Section 21 thereof. Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that
there is no violation of any term, practically no part of the cause of action
had arisen in Delhi and the Delhi High Court has rightly observed that the J
appellant can pursue his remedy if any before the Allahabad High Court.
D
In the present appeal, we are not concerned with the question whether
-, there is any violation of the terms of Extradition Act. The only question that
needs consideration is whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to deal
with the matter. The Delhi High Court accepted that it may have jurisdiction
but it was of the view that the grievance can be more effectively dealt with
by the Allahabad High Court. E

Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution is of great importance. It
reads as follows:

"(2) The power conferred by clause (I) to issue directions, orders or
writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised F
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
"' Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within
those territories."
G
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 H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within
the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such infringement may take
place by causing him actual injury of threat thereof.

Two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution on plain reading give
clear indication that the High Court can exercise power to issue direction,
B 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 Oil and Natural Gas
c Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors., (1994] 4 SCC 711.)

By "cause of action" it is meant every fact, which, if traversed, it would
be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a
judgment of the Court. In other words, a bundle of facts, which it is necessary
D for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit. (See Bloom Dekor
Ltd. v. Subhash Himatla/ Desai and Ors., (1994] 6 SCC 322.)

,-
In a generic and wide sense (as in Section 20 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908) "cause of action" means every fact, which it is necessary to
establish to support a right to obtain a judgment. (See Sandanandan Bhadran
E v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, [1998] 6 SCC 514).

It is settled law that "cause of action" consists of bundle of facts, which
give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other
words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them,
gives the plaintiff a right to claim relief against the defendant. It must include
F some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause
of action would possibly accrue or would arise. (See South East Asia Shipping
Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., (1996] 3 SCC 443)

The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially settled
meaning. In the restricted sense "cause of action" means the crcumstances
G forming the infractionn 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 expressionn
means every facts, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if ,..
....
H traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every
OMPRAKASHSRIVASTAVAv. U.0.1. [PASAYAT,J.) 809
fact, .which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of A
evidence, which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of
action". (See Rajas than High Court Advocates' Association v. Union of India
and Ors., [2001] 2 SCC 294.)

The expression "cause of action" has sometimes been employed to
convey the restricted idea of facts or circumstances which constitute either B
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 the proof of which the plaintiff must fail in his suit.
(See Gurdit Singh v. Munsha Singh, [1977] I SCC 791). C
The expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a
situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court
or a triubnal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases of
suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court
from another person. (See Black's Law Dictionary). In Stroud's Judicial D
DictionaJJ' a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives
rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which if traversed,
the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. In "Words and Phrases''
(4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrasee "cause of action" in common
legal parlance is existence of those facts, which give a party a right to judicial
interference on his behalf. (See Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of E
Maharashtra and Ors., [2000] 7 SCC 640).

In Halsbury Laws of England (Fourth Edition) it has been stated as
follows:

"Cause of action has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation F
the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the Court
a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from
earlies time to include every fact which is material to be proved to
entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant
would have a right to traverse. 'Cause of action' has also been taken G
to mean that particular act on the part of the defendant which gives
• the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject matter of grievance
founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action."

As observed by the Privy Council in Payana v. Pana Lana, (1914) 41
IA 142, the rule is directed to securing the exhaustion of the relief in respect H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A of a cause of action and not to the inclusion in one and the same action or
different causes of action, even though they arises from the same transaction.
One great criterion is, when the question arises as to whether the cause of
action in the subsequent suit is identical with that in the first suit whether
the same evidence will maintain both actions. (See Mohammad Khalil Khan
B v. Mahbub Ali Mian, AIR (1949) PC 78).

It would be appropriate to quote para 61 of the said judgment, which
reads as follows:-

"61. xxx xxx xxx

c ( 1) The correct test in cases falling under Order 11 Rule 2, is whether
the claim in the new suitt is in fact founded upon a cause of action
distinct from that which was the foundation of the former suit
(Moonshee Buzloor Fuheer v. Shumroonnissa Begum, (1967) 11 Moo
I 551 (P.C.).

D (2) The 'cause of action' means every fact which will be necessary for
the plaintiff to prove it tranversed to order to support his right to the
judgment (Real v. Brown, ( 1889) 22 Q.B.O. 138). r

(3) If the evidence to support the two claims is different (Brunsoon
v. Nurnphroy, (1984) 14 Q.B.O. 141),
E
(4) The causes of action in the two suits may be considered to be
away ifin substance they are identical (Brunsoon v. Numphroy, supra).

(5) The cause of action has no relation whether to the defence that
may be act up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character
F of the relief prayed for the plaintiff. It refers ..... to media upon which
the plaintiff save the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.
(Mst. Chand Kaur v. Pratap Singh, (1887) 156 I.A. 185 (PC). This
observation was made by Lord Watson in a case under section 43 of
the Act of 1882 (corresponding to Order II, Rule 2) where plaintiff
made various claim in the same.'')
G
In the instant case the High Court has not dealt with the question as
to whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the writ petition. It only observed
that the Delhi High Court may have jurisdiction, but the issues relating to
conditions of prisoners in the State ofU.P. can be more effectively dealt with

H
by the Allahabad High Court. As noted supra, there were two grienvances •.
OMPRAKASHSRIVASTAVAv. U.0.1.[PASAYAT,J.] 811

by the appellant. But only one of them i.e. the alleged lack of Medical facilities A
has been referred to by the High Court. It was open to the Delhi High Court
to say that no part of the cause of action arose withi the territorial jurisdiction
of the Delhi High Court. The High Court in the impugned order does not say
so. On the contrary, it says that jurisdiction may be there, but the Allahabad
High Court can deal with the matter more effectively. That is not certainly a
correct way to deal with the writ petition. Accordingly, we set aside the B
impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh hearing
on merits. A prayer has been made for release of the appellant on parole for
the reasons indicated in the application. We are not inclined to pass any order
on the said application. The same is rejected.

The appeal is disposed of as aforesaid. No costs.
c
D.G. Appeal disposed of.

l

,.