Territorial jurisdiction under writ law must follow the cause of action, not a blanket bench-transfer directive.

An advocate, lacking personal grievance, could not maintain a collateral writ in representative or public interest form to challenge the Registry's filing practice. The Court held that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 must be determined case by case on the cause of action, and that neither the Chief Justice's administrative powers nor prior interim directions could justify a blanket directive governing filing or transfer of writ matters between benches. On that basis, the requested mandamus was unsustainable and the petition was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an advocate had locus standi to maintain the writ petition in a representative or public interest capacity; (ii) whether the relief sought, namely a direction to the Registry regarding filing and transfer of writ matters between the Principal Seat and the Madurai Bench, could be granted under Article 226; (iii) whether the prior suo motu interim directions of the Division Bench governed the present proceeding; and (iv) whether the Court could issue the requested mandamus in view of the settled law on territorial jurisdiction and bench allocation.

Issue (i): Whether an advocate had locus standi to maintain the writ petition in a representative or public interest capacity.

Analysis: The petition was not founded on any personal grievance or case-specific injury. The challenge was to the Registry's alleged practice in relation to filing and numbering of matters belonging to different territorial jurisdictions. The Court relied on the principle that an advocate, without being a person aggrieved, cannot invoke public interest jurisdiction for such a collateral challenge.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the relief sought, namely a direction to the Registry regarding filing and transfer of writ matters between the Principal Seat and the Madurai Bench, could be granted under Article 226.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction in writ matters depends on the cause of action in each individual case, and the Chief Justice cannot by administrative direction redefine that jurisdiction. The President's order establishing the permanent Bench and the governing precedents require jurisdictional questions to be decided case by case, with the Registry and the concerned Judge acting within the settled framework.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the prior suo motu interim directions of the Division Bench governed the present proceeding.

Analysis: The earlier interim arrangement was only a provisional measure pending final decision. It did not create a general right in favour of the petitioner to compel a blanket transfer or filing directive for all matters. The Court held that the ultimate jurisdictional test remains the cause of action in each case and not a generalized administrative rule.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether the Court could issue the requested mandamus in view of the settled law on territorial jurisdiction and bench allocation.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principles that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 is determined by the facts of each case, that the Chief Justice has limited administrative discretion under the Presidential Order, and that a third party cannot collaterally challenge how another litigant's case was numbered or entertained. On that basis, the prayer for a blanket mandamus was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the Court declined to grant the requested directions, leaving territorial jurisdiction to be determined in individual cases according to the cause of action and the governing presidential order.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ proceedings concerning bifurcated High Court jurisdictions, territorial competence must be decided on the cause of action in each individual case, and a person who is not personally aggrieved cannot obtain a blanket mandamus regulating filing or numbering of cases between benches.

---