Territorial jurisdiction in trust-property writs depends on where the impugned refusal order was passed, not only property location.

Territorial jurisdiction for a writ challenging refusal of permission to alienate trust property turned on where the impugned order under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was passed, not merely on the location of the trust properties. Because the permission was sought and refused at Pune, a material part of the cause of action arose within the Principal Seat's ordinary territorial jurisdiction. The High Court's writ jurisdiction remains co-extensive with the State, while the Appellate Side Rules govern presentation for administrative convenience and do not cut down constitutional jurisdiction. Forum conveniens may justify transfer in a proper case, but it does not negate jurisdiction. The territorial objection was rejected and the return applications were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the Charity Commissioner's refusal to grant permission to alienate trust property were liable to be returned for presentation before the Aurangabad Bench on the ground that the properties were situated within that Bench's territorial area, and whether the Principal Seat at Bombay lacked territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The relevant jurisdictional fact was the place where the impugned order refusing permission under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was passed, not merely the situs of the properties. Since the permission was sought and refused at Pune, a material part of the cause of action arose within the ordinary territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat. The High Court's writ jurisdiction is co-extensive with the State, and the Appellate Side Rules regulate presentation for administrative convenience; they do not curtail constitutional jurisdiction. The rule of forum conveniens may justify transfer in appropriate cases, but it does not negate jurisdiction where the impugned order itself was passed within the Principal Seat's territorial limits.

Conclusion: The territorial objection was rejected and the civil applications seeking return of the writ petitions were dismissed.

---