BAKSISH AHMAD vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10.01.2025

+ W.P.(C) 229/2025 & CM APPL. 1111/2025
BAKSISH AHMAD …..Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.A. Inayati, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. …..Respondents
Through: Mr.Gaurav Barathi, Adv. for
R-1-2.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief: –
“(1) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction setting aside the dismissal order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the Commandant, and reinstate the petitioner in his post with all consequential benefits and back wages.”

2. The petitioner was dismissed from service vide the Impugned Order dated 27.10.2022 issued by the Commandant, 44 Bn. BSF, Narayanpur, District Malda, West Bengal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a Statutory Petition dated 18.09.2023, under Rule 28A of the BSF Rules, 1969, which was dismissed by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, BSF, Jammu & Kashmir, vide Order dated 22.12.2023.
3. The petitioner himself is a resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
4. We, therefore, enquired from the petitioner as to why this petition has been filed before this Court. He submits that the petition has been filed before this Court as the office of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs is situated at Delhi.
5. We do not find merit in the above submission. Merely because the offices of the respondents are situated in Delhi, would not make this court the forum conveniens, especially where no part of the cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction.
6. In the present case, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide Impugned Order dated 27.10.2023, which was issued at West Bengal. The petitioner subsequently submitted a statutory petition dated 18.09.2023, which has been dismissed by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, BSF Jammu & Kashmir, vide Order dated 22.12.2023. Therefore, the cause of action for filing of the petition has arisen at West Bengal or in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Merely because the office of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs is situated at Delhi, it will not make this Court a forum conveniens.
7. Applying the principle of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, therefore, we are of the opinion that this Court would not be the appropriate/convenient Forum for entertaining the present petition. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the present petition in exercise of the discretion vested in us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The petition and the pending application are dismissed, while reserving the liberty of the petitioner to avail of his remedies in accordance with law before the Court having jurisdiction.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
JANUARY 10, 2025
RN/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

W.P.(C) 229/2025 Page 2 of 3