Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition on the basis that a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits.
Analysis: Jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on the facts pleaded and not on disputed truth of those facts. Only those facts which are material, integral, essential, and having a real nexus with the lis can constitute a part of the cause of action. Facts that are incidental, trivial, or unconnected with the relief claimed do not confer territorial jurisdiction. The location of EFLU at Hyderabad, and the allegation that it was not consulted at all stages of the tender, were held not to be material or essential facts giving rise to a part of the cause of action, because the grievance and relief were directed against respondents located outside the State and not against the local respondent.
Conclusion: The High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction; the writ petition was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Article 226(2), only material facts having a direct nexus with the relief sought can constitute a part of the cause of action, and irrelevant or incidental local facts do not confer territorial jurisdiction.