G GOPINATH S/O M GAJAPATHI vs. THE DIRECTOR

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.23224 OF 2011 (EDN) BETWEEN G GOPINATH S/O M GAJAPATHI 17 YEARS, R/AT ATHURNAHALLI VILLAGE & POST, VIA MULLUPATTI, PALACODE TALUK DHARMAPURI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU STATE SINCE MINOR REP BY HIS FATHER & NATURAL GAURDIAN M GAJAPATHI, S/O LATE MADAIYAN 46 YEARS ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. T A KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL COUNSELING BOARD (AIEEE-2011) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY- KARNATAKA, SURATKAL, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575025 2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY TANJORE MAIN ROAD, NH-67 TIRUCHIRAPALLI-650 015 TAMIL NADU STATE REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN

2 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DHARMAPURI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU STATE-636701 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO ADMIT THE PETITIONER TO THE SCHEDULE TRIBE RESERVATION QUOTA AS PER ANNEX.H ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Petitioner claiming to belong to “Kurichchan” community said to be a notified Scheduled Tribe in the State of Tamil Nadu having applied for admission to the Engineering course in National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu–Respondent No.2, requiring counseling by the first respondent – Board, has presented this petition for Writ of Mandamus to respondents to admit the petitioner to the engineering course reserved for Scheduled Tribes. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father when issued with a certificate to belong to the Scheduled Tribe was subject matter of proceeding in WP

3 No.15652/2010 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras leading to Contempt Petition No.137/2011 whence by order dated 08.03.2011 a direction was issued to the Revenue Divisional Officer and State level Scrutiny Committee, Tamil Nadu, to consider the request and pass orders on the certificate after due enquiry over its genuiness within two months therefrom. 3. In the circumstances, the cause of action for the petitioner arose in the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore the petition presented before this Court is not maintainable, in the light of the opinion of the Apex Court in Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs. R.K.Mishra, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Others reported in 2010 (1) SCC 457 observing thus: “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

4 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. 10: In this case, the genesis for the entire episode of search, seizure and detention was the action of the security / intelligence officials at Hyderabad alerted their counterparts at Chennai Airport that the appellant was carrying a huge sum of money, and required o be intercepted and questioned. A part of the cause of action therefore clearly arose in Hyderabad. It is also to be challenged that the consequential income tax proceedings against him, which he challenged in the writ petition, were also initiated at Hyderabad. Therefore, his writ petition ought

5 not to have been rejected on the ground of want of jurisdiction.” Petition is accordingly rejected. Sd/- JUDGE GH