Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60321 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5103 of 2025 Petitioner :- Chandra Mohan Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Malik Juned Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Mr. Malik Juned Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the order of punishment dated 11.08.2017 passed by Commandant 80th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Chhatisgarh, the order passed by Appellate Authority dated 16th January, 2018 passed by D.I.G. Range, C.R.P.F. Bhopal, M.P. and the order dated 18th July, 2018 passed by I.G., M.P. Sector, C.R.P.F., Bhopal and also the order dated 20th July, 2020 passed by Special D.G., Central Zone, C.R.P.F., Kolkata (West Bengal) withholding increment of petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order dated 20th July, 2020 is also passed by the Appellate Authority, Bhopal and over and above the order of punishment, earlier appeal and revision an order has been passed by the authority sitting in Kolkata. 4. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Advocate submits that petitioner was served with penalty order, while he was posted at Chhatisgarh and appellate order was passed while he was posted at Madhya Pradesh and currently he is posted at Jammu & Kashmir, hence, the petitioner should avail the remedy either before the High Court at Jammu & Kashmir where he is posted currently or at the place where the order had been initially passed at Chhatisgarh or finally before Calcutta High Court as finally order has been passed by the authority at Kolkata but he cannot approach this Court by filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction in respect of the orders passed by authorities sitting in different States. 5. Meeting the submissions so advanced, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Malik Juned Ahmad submits that since the subject matter of enquiry was at Prayagraj, therefore, the cause of action would arise here. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the considered view that cause of action is not the incident rather the cause of action relates to the order that has been passed. Petitioner shall have a cause of action only against the order and not in respect of incident, therefore, the Chhatisgarh High has territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition. Petitioner may also approach Calcutta High Court, since the petitioner is aggrieved by the final order passed at Kolkata or even Jammu and Kashmir High Court as currently petitioner is posted in Jammu & Kashmir as part of cause of action may arise there. Accordingly, I uphold the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent and decline to grant indulgence in the matter. However, liberty rests with the petitioner to approach an appropriate High Court which may have territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition. 7. Subject to the aforesaid liberty, this petition is consigned to records. Order Date :- 22.4.2025/Shiraz Digitally signed by :- SHIRAZ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad