Territorial jurisdiction in writ proceedings depends on an integral cause of action, not mere service of notice at another place.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether a pleaded fact forms an integral part of the cause of action. In a writ challenge to a Rajasthan acquisition notification, mere service of notice under Section 52(2) at the petitioner's Calcutta office was not sufficient, because the acquisition proceedings and the impugned notification operated in Rajasthan where the land was situated. Since the notice was not necessary to sustain the relief claimed, it did not confer jurisdiction on the Calcutta High Court. The appropriate forum was the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, for challenge to the acquisition action.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of notice under Section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 at Calcutta constituted an integral part of the cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the acquisition notification issued by the State Government of Rajasthan.

Analysis: The acquisition of the land and the impugned notification under Section 52(1) became effective in Rajasthan, where the land was situated and where the entire acquisition proceedings were conducted. The mere service of notice at the respondent's registered office in Calcutta did not, by itself, create a cause of action within West Bengal, because the challenged notification could be assailed without pleading service of that notice as a necessary fact for relief. The service of notice was therefore not an integral component of the cause of action within the meaning of Article 226(2), and the appropriate forum was the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.

Conclusion: The Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and to pass the ad-interim ex parte prohibitory order.

---