Residence of Litigant Cannot Confer Jurisdiction on Circuit Bench: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court’s Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench has reinforced the strict boundaries of its territorial authority, ruling that a petitioner’s place of residence or the desired location of a transfer does not create a cause of action where the underlying administrative grievance originated outside its specific judicial districts.

Justice Kausik Chanda presided over the matter, addressing a writ petition filed by an Assistant Teacher seeking a transfer from Birbhum to schools in Alipurduar or Cooch Behar. The Court examined whether the Circuit Bench could entertain the plea when the primary cause of action the rejection of her transfer application occurred in Birbhum, a district outside the Circuit's mandate.

Cause of Action Must Result From Integral Facts

The Court emphasized that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India is determined by where the cause of action arises, either wholly or in part. The petitioner argued that because she resides in Jalpaiguri and seeks a transfer to districts under the Circuit Bench's jurisdiction, the Court should intervene. However, the Court observed that the impugned order of rejection was issued by a school official in Birbhum.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In my considered view, the mere fact that the petitioner is a resident of Jalpaiguri District or seeks a transfer to a school situated in Cooch Behar or Alipurduar does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Circuit Bench. The cause of action, as pleaded in the writ petition, has arisen in the district of Birbhum. The impugned rejection order has been issued from the said district. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present writ petition originates within the districts over which this Circuit Bench ordinarily exercises jurisdiction."

Application of the Circuit Bench Rules

The Bench highlighted that the Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri) Rules, 2019, specifically regulate the institution of cases. Under these rules, only cases 'originating' in the districts of Cooch Behar, Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri, Kalimpong, and Alipurduar are to be decided by the Circuit Bench. The Court noted that the petitioner’s expectations of a posting do not constitute a material part of the legal grievance.

In dismissing the petition, the Court relied on several precedents. It cited Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu ( "(1994) 4 SCC 711": 1994 CaseBase(SC) 292) to establish that only facts having a nexus with the lis are relevant. Furthermore, it referred to Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India to reiterate that facts must constitute an integral part of the cause of action to confer jurisdiction. The Court also noted the principle from State of Rajasthan v. M/s Swaika Properties, which clarifies that mere service of notice or the residence of the petitioner is insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction.

Court Directions

The Court issued the following directions:

"Accordingly, W.P.A. No.793 of 2026 is dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction."

"It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum in accordance with law."

Background:

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher at Hetampur Raj Girls' High School in Birbhum, sought a transfer citing the 200-kilometre distance from her home and her responsibilities as the sole caregiver for her child. She had previously moved a writ petition where a Coordinate Bench directed the school to consider her representation. However, the Teacher-in-Charge rejected her request, stating she was the only Physical Education Teacher in the institution and her transfer would harm the academic interests of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The petitioner challenged this rejection before the Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench, prompting the State to raise a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction.

Key Takeaways:

Strict Adherence to Circuit Rules

Circuit Benches are bound by specific administrative rules that limit their jurisdiction to cases originating within designated districts, regardless of the petitioner’s residence.

Residence is not Cause of Action

For the purposes of Article 226, the place where a petitioner resides or wants to be posted is not an 'integral' fact if the adverse administrative action happened elsewhere.

Clarification on 'Lis' Nexus

Litigants must approach the specific High Court or Bench within whose territory the decision-making authority is located or where the primary legal injury occurred.

Ratio Decidendi:

The territorial jurisdiction of a Circuit Bench is governed by the specific rules framed by the High Court under its administrative powers. Under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the mere residence of a petitioner or the geographical location of a preferred outcome (such as a transfer destination) does not constitute a material or integral part of the cause of action if the impugned order originated outside the Bench's territorial limits.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P.A. No.793 of 2026
Case Title: MADHABILATA BARMAN -VERSUS- THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. Soumyojit Laskar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Supriya Singh, Adv., Ms. Rajni Singh Dev, Adv., Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy, Adv.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 14