1. A preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court to consider this writ petition is raised by the respondent bank and hence the matter is listed on board for hearing the point.

2. Petitioner while working in the Asset Recovery Branch-South, Bangalore of the Union Bank of India as Senior Manager has been served with Ext. P6 order of transfer, transferring him from Bangalore to Chennai. The petitioner submits that the said transfer is contrary to Clause 5.11(vi) of Ext. P7 Circular. The petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P.(C) No. 1527 of 2026 which resulted in Ext. P4 judgment directing the respondent to consider the representation as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months. In pursuance to the said direction, Ext. P5 order was passed rejecting the representation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Clause 5.11(vi) of Ext. P7 Circular has not been properly considered, and the benefit not granted and hence Ext. P6 order of transfer is not valid. The petitioner further submits that the cause of action for filing the present writ petition has arisen after the disposal of the earlier writ petition as evident from Ext.P4 and when Ext.P10 judgment was rendered by the Family Court Ernakulam granting divorce and permanent custody of minor children. Thus according to the petitioner, a part of the cause of action has arisen within the State of Kerala and therefore, seeks to maintain this writ petition before this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank raising a preliminary objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present writ petition. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Jacob v. Inspector General of Police [2022 (4) KLT 855].

3. Heard Smt. Dhanya Asokan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sadchith P. Kurup, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank.

4. Smt. Dhanya Asokan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others [2011 KHC 2729 : AIR 2011 Del. 174] submits that even if a part of cause of action arises within the territory limits of this Court, Article 226(2) enables this Court to entertain the present writ petition. She further submits that in view of the directions issued by this Court in Ext. P4 judgment, the present writ petition is maintainable. She further pointed out that the impugned order is now passed in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court under Ext. P4 and, therefore, the respondents have themselves acquiesced to the jurisdiction of this Court and cannot resile back and contend that the present writ petition is not entertainable since the Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. She further submits that the cause of action for invocation of the jurisdiction is the exercise which has been directed to be undertaken by this Court under Ext. P4 and Ext.P10 judgment passed by the Family court, Ernakulam.

5. Per contra, Sri. Sadchith P. Kurup, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that merely because this Court had issued a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to consider and dispose of the representation, that by itself will not enable the petitioner to maintain the present writ petition. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Jacob (supra). He further submits that the request of the petitioner was to transfer out of Bangalore which has been considered. The applicability of Clause 5.11(vi) of Ext. P7 Circular cannot be gone into by this Court in the present writ petition inasmuch as this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.

6. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and perused the impugned orders.

7. Since the respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ petition, the entitlement of the petitioner for benefit of Ext. P7 circular cannot be considered by this Court, unless the objection of the respondent bank is overruled.

8. What is now contented before this Court is that because of the fact that the earlier writ petition was entertained by this Court and a writ of mandamus was issued directing the respondents to consider the representation, this Court will get territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Still further, it is contended that the part of cause of action has arisen within the Jurisdiction of this Court when judgement dated 08.01.2026 was passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam.

9. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner relies on two sets of facts which according to him will give rise to cause action within the territorial limits of this Court. As regards the issuance of writ of mandamus by this Court under Ext.P4 Judgment, it is worthwhile to mention that, merely because this Court directed the Bank to consider the representation, that by itself will not enable the petitioner to maintain the present writ petition. Moreover, the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction was not raised and decided in Ext. P4 Judgment. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ext.P4 Judgment conclusively binds the respondent on the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

10. Admittedly, the petitioner was working at Bangalore when the order of transfer was passed, transferring him to Chennai. A cursory glance at the averments in the writ petition reveals that there is no averment regarding which part of cause of action falls within the limits of this Court. Then the further question is whether the residence of the petitioner in the State of Kerala can confer jurisdiction on this Court.

11. The above question is no longer res integra in the view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Indian Maritime University v. Viswanathan [2014 (4) KLT 798 (F.B)]. The decision of the Full Bench was followed by another Division Bench in Jacob(supra) wherein the Division Bench held that merely because the choice of the petitioner was to get transferred to Kerala by itself will not give rise to cause of action to file the writ petition before this Court.

12. In this case, authority who issued the transfer order is admittedly stationed outside the territorial limits of this Court. Hence it is evident that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial limits of this Court. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed extensive reliance on the decision of the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd (supra), this Court is of the view that, it is not bound by the decision of the Delhi High Court and hence is not persuaded to follow the same. That apart, merely because the petitioner is a resident of the State of Kerala will not clothe the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present writ petition.

13. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that, the cause of action for filing the writ petition can be traced to the manner in which the representation has been disposed of, it important to note that the petitioner is not able to point out any fact or bundle of facts which would enable this Court to entertain this writ petition of this nature. As stated above, merely because the respondent Bank acted upon the request of the petitioner as directed under Ext. P4 judgment cannot be said to be a bundle of facts which would enable the petitioner to maintain the writ petition within the territorial limits of this Court.

14. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the cause of action for filing the writ petition is traceable to Ext. P10 Judgment passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, this Court is of the considered view that Ext.P10 judgment can only at best said to have given the entitlement to the petitioner to claim benefit of Ext.P7 Circular. There is fundamental distinction between petitioner’s entitlement to seek transfer and approval of cause of action. Therefore, this Court has no other alternative but to reject the aforesaid contention.

15. At any rate, when this Court finds that the points raised in this writ petition are squarely covered against the petitioner by the decision of the Full Bench in Indian Maritime University (supra), therefore it is not appropriate for this Court to entertain the present writ petition and consider the case on merits.

                  Accordingly, the preliminary objection of the respondent bank is sustained and the writ petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the jurisdictional Court for ventilating his grievances.