Territorial jurisdiction in writ proceedings must be assessed on the full factual setting, not one location alone.

Territorial jurisdiction for a writ petition cannot be determined by treating the place where summary court-martial proceedings were conducted as the sole ative factor. The jurisdictional enquiry must consider the full factual setting, including that the petition had been filed before the impugned order was made and the location of the Chief of Army Staff. On that basis, the High Court's dismissal at the admission stage for want of territorial jurisdiction was held unjustified, the order was set aside, and the writ petition was restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage for want of territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The writ petition had been filed in 1992, while the impugned order was passed in 1999, and this circumstance was relevant to the jurisdictional enquiry. The High Court erred in relying only on the place where the summary court-martial proceedings were conducted and in treating that factor alone as decisive. The location of the Chief of Army Staff also made the jurisdictional objection untenable.

Conclusion: The dismissal for want of territorial jurisdiction was not justified; the order was set aside and the writ petition was restored for decision on merits.

---