Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 requires a real cause of action within limits; mere office presence is insufficient.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on the respondent being amenable to the Court's power or on the cause of action, wholly or in part, arising within its limits. Mere presence of an office of the Union of India in the State, or a representation addressed to a superior authority there, does not by itself confer jurisdiction where the impugned disciplinary orders were passed outside the territory and no material part of the dispute arose within it. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction, and the preliminary objection succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition when the impugned disciplinary orders were passed outside its jurisdiction and no part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial limits.

Analysis: Jurisdiction under Article 226 depends upon the authority or person being amenable to the Court's power or upon the cause of action, wholly or in part, arising within the Court's territorial limits. The mere fact that the Union of India has an office within the State, or that a representation was addressed to a superior authority located there, does not by itself create territorial jurisdiction when no order has been passed within the jurisdiction and no material part of the dispute arose there. The Court therefore held that neither the impugned orders nor any part of the cause of action was connected with its territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable before the Court for want of territorial jurisdiction and the Rule failed on the preliminary objection.

---