Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) requires a material cause of action; Chennai office and TDS deduction were insufficient.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on whether a material part of the cause of action arises within the High Court's limits. Mere existence of the petitioner's Chennai office and deduction of TDS at Chennai were insufficient, because the impugned order was issued at New Delhi, the relevant records and returns were maintained there, and the respondent had no actionable role in Chennai. On those facts, Chennai did not supply any substantive cause of action, and the High Court found that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition when the impugned order was passed at New Delhi and the petitioner relied on its Chennai office and deduction of TDS at Chennai.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on whether the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the High Court's territorial limits. Mere presence of the petitioner's office at Chennai or deduction of TDS there did not, by itself, create a material part of the cause of action. The relevant order was issued at New Delhi, the assessee records were maintained there, the returns were filed there, and the respondent had no actionable role at Chennai. On those facts, the Chennai office was held insufficient to confer jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, and the challenge was rejected on that ground.

---