Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 requires a pleaded cause of action within the High Court's limits; dismissal was upheld.

A writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable only if the petition discloses that the cause of action, or part of it, arose within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction. On the stated facts, no such averment was made and the Court found that no part of the cause of action arose within that jurisdiction. It also noted that remand would be inappropriate where jurisdiction itself was absent. The dismissal of the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction was therefore upheld and the special leave petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, and whether remand to the High Court was warranted after the absence of jurisdiction was found.

Analysis: The writ petition did not contain an averment that any part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. On the facts, the Court found that the cause of action did not arise within that jurisdiction. It further observed that a remand would be inappropriate where jurisdiction itself was lacking.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, and no remand was ordered.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's dismissal failed, and the special leave petition stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable before a High Court unless the petition discloses that the cause of action or a part of it has arisen within that High Court's territorial jurisdiction.

---