Territorial jurisdiction in preventive detention includes service and execution of the detention order within the forum territory.

Service of a preventive detention order and taking the detenue into custody within Rajasthan constituted part of the cause of action under Article 226, because territorial jurisdiction depends on whether the cause of action arises wholly or in part within the Court's territory. In habeas corpus matters, the material facts include not only the making of the detention order but also the actual deprivation of liberty through service and execution of the order. A practical construction was preferred to avoid rendering the words "wholly or in part" ineffective. The Court also noted that any refusal to entertain a petition on convenience grounds is separate from the existence of territorial jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether service and execution of a detention order within the territory of Rajasthan supplied part of the cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether the cause of action wholly or in part arises within the Court's territory. In a habeas corpus challenge to preventive detention, the material facts include not only the passing of the detention order but also the factual deprivation of liberty, including service of the order and taking the detenue into custody for execution of that order. A narrow view that only the place where the order was passed can confer jurisdiction would render the words "wholly or in part" ineffective and defeat the purpose of the constitutional amendment. The Court therefore accepted a practical construction that treats detention-related acts within Rajasthan as constituting part of the cause of action, while noting that discretionary refusal to entertain a petition on grounds of convenience is a separate matter from absence of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Service of the detention order and taking the detenue into custody within Rajasthan did confer territorial jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain the petition.

---