Forum conveniens can defeat territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 even when part of the cause of action arises locally.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 may exist in more than one High Court where part of the cause of action arises within its territory, but the court may still decline to entertain the writ if another forum is clearly more convenient. In a challenge arising from grant of a prospecting licence under the Mines and Minerals regime, the principal decision was taken by the State Government and the mine was outside Delhi, so the mere location of the revisional authority in Delhi was not decisive. Applying forum conveniens, the Delhi High Court declined to exercise jurisdiction and treated the Bombay High Court as the more appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should exercise territorial jurisdiction over the writ appeal in view of the doctrine of forum conveniens.

Analysis: The dispute arose from grant of a prospecting licence under the Mines and Minerals regime, where the principal decision was taken by the State Government and the mine was situated outside Delhi. The revisional authority being situated in Delhi did not, by itself, make Delhi the obligatory forum. The Court applied the settled principle that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the existence of a part of the cause of action may make the writ maintainable in more than one High Court, but the High Court retains discretion to decline interference if another forum is more convenient. The Court relied on the larger Bench view that forum conveniens must be assessed on the factual matrix and that the situs of the appellate or revisional authority is not the sole determinative factor.

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court declined to entertain the matter, holding Bombay High Court to be the more appropriate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where multiple High Courts may have jurisdiction because part of the cause of action arises within their territories, the writ court may still refuse to exercise jurisdiction if, on sound judicial principles, another forum is clearly more convenient.

---