Territorial limits in writ jurisdiction: cause of action alone cannot confer jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32(2A).

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 32(2A) depends on the person, authority, or Government being within the territorial limits of the High Court, which the majority treated as a factual question of location or residence. The Union Government was held to be situated at New Delhi, so it was not treated as being within the Jammu and Kashmir High Court's territorial reach. The Constitution was also held not to import the civil-law concept of cause of action into writ jurisdiction, and jurisdiction could not be founded merely on where an order took effect or where the cause of action arose. On that reasoning, territorial jurisdiction was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Union Government could be treated as being within the territories of a High Court for the purpose of issuing writs or directions under Article 226 and Article 32(2A) of the Constitution; and (ii) whether the place where the cause of action arose could supply jurisdiction under those provisions.

Issue (i): whether the Union Government could be treated as being within the territories of a High Court for the purpose of issuing writs or directions under Article 226 and Article 32(2A) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The majority held that the constitutional phrase requiring the person or authority to be "within those territories" refers to residence or location in fact, and that the Union Government is located at New Delhi. It was further held that the words "including in appropriate cases any Government" do not enlarge territorial jurisdiction so as to treat the Union Government as present in every State merely because its executive power extends throughout India. The majority concluded that the earlier rulings requiring the authority to be within territorial limits remained correct.

Conclusion: The Union Government was not amenable to the Jammu and Kashmir High Court on the facts of this case, and jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 32(2A) was not available on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether the place where the cause of action arose could supply jurisdiction under those provisions.

Analysis: The majority held that the constitutional text does not incorporate the civil suit concept of cause of action into writ jurisdiction. Since Article 226 and Article 32(2A) focus on the presence of the person, authority, or Government within territorial limits, jurisdiction cannot be founded merely on the place where the impugned order takes effect or where the cause of action arises. The words of the Constitution were treated as limiting jurisdiction, not as permitting an alternative cause of action test.

Conclusion: Cause of action could not confer jurisdiction on the High Court in this case.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the impugned order was made by an authority outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, and writ jurisdiction could not be sustained on the basis of cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 226 and Article 32(2A), writ jurisdiction depends on the person, authority, or Government being within the territorial limits of the High Court, and the concept of cause of action does not by itself confer such jurisdiction.

---