Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 requires a real cause of action nexus; a merely incidental connection cannot sustain a writ petition.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 is confined to cases where the cause of action arises wholly or in substantial part within the High Court's limits. On the facts stated, the alleged statement and the representation were linked to Puducherry, which lay outside the Madurai Bench's territorial reach. A merely incidental or insignificant connection was insufficient, and the doctrine of forum conveniens could not create jurisdiction where none existed. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable before that Bench for want of territorial jurisdiction and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was entertainable by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in the absence of territorial jurisdiction over the place where the alleged incident occurred.

Analysis: Jurisdiction under Article 226 is territorially limited, and a writ court can act only when the cause of action, in whole or in substantial part, arises within its territorial limits. The pleadings and supporting material showed that the alleged statement and the representation were connected to Puducherry, which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench. A mere incidental or insignificant connection is insufficient, and the doctrine of forum conveniens cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable before the Court for want of territorial jurisdiction and was rightly dismissed.

---