Territorial writ jurisdiction under Article 226 upheld where a material part of the cause of action arose in Bangalore.

Article 226 confers writ jurisdiction where the authority is located within the court's territory or where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part. The Karnataka High Court treated the Dharwad and Gulbarga Bench arrangements as administrative distribution of work, not a constitutional restriction on the Principal Bench's power. Because the impugned suspension order and the Tribunal's order were both connected to Bangalore, a material part of the cause of action arose there. The petitioner's residence and the district origin of the service dispute did not by themselves oust jurisdiction. The registry could not conclusively reject the petition at scrutiny on territorial grounds; that question had to be decided by the Judge. The writ petition was maintainable before the Principal Bench.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Principal Bench of the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, notwithstanding the availability of the Gulbarga Bench.

Analysis: Article 226 confers writ jurisdiction on a High Court where the seat of the authority is within its territory or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territory. The territorial arrangement for the Dharwad and Gulbarga Benches under the relevant notifications and the Presidential Order was treated as an administrative distribution of work and not as a curtailment of the constitutional power under Article 226. The decisive factor was that the impugned suspension order was passed by authorities situated in Bangalore and the challenge was to the order of the Tribunal passed at Bangalore. The Court further held that the place of residence of the petitioner or the district from which the service matter arose did not by itself oust the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench when a material part of the cause of action arose there. The registry could not finally decide such jurisdictional questions at the scrutiny stage, as the issue had to be determined by the Judge hearing the matter.

Conclusion: The Principal Bench had jurisdiction and the office objection was unsustainable; the writ petition was maintainable before the Principal Bench.

---