Territorial jurisdiction in writs attaches where a material part of the cause of action arises, and forum conveniens cannot override it

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) was attracted because a material part of the cause of action arose where pension was received and later stopped, and the recovery demand affected the petitioner there. The later writ petition was based on a distinct subsequent cause of action, so it could not be defeated by reference to an earlier writ on different facts pending elsewhere. The doctrine of forum conveniens did not justify refusal to exercise jurisdiction absent compelling reasons. The High Court's dismissal for want of territorial jurisdiction was therefore erroneous, and the writ petition was restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Patna High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging stoppage of pension and recovery of pension amounts, and whether the doctrine of forum conveniens justified refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge in the later writ petition arose from subsequent letters stopping pension and demanding refund of pension already paid for several years at the petitioner's Darbhanga bank account. These facts were distinct from the earlier writ petition, which concerned a different relief on a different cause of action. Under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, territorial jurisdiction exists where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Cause of action means the bundle of material facts necessary to support the claim, and for jurisdictional objection the pleaded facts must be seen. Since pension was regularly received at Darbhanga and its stoppage affected the petitioner there, a part of the cause of action arose within Patna's territorial limits. The plea of forum conveniens also failed because the petitioner, a retired employee receiving pension at his native place, could not be compelled to litigate only in another High Court merely because an earlier, different writ was pending there.

Conclusion: The Patna High Court had territorial jurisdiction, the writ petition was maintainable there, and dismissal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction was erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was restored for adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In a writ petition, territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) is attracted when a material part of the cause of action arises within the court's territory, and a later cause of action distinct from an earlier proceeding cannot be defeated merely because an earlier writ on different facts was pursued elsewhere; forum conveniens cannot override such jurisdiction in the absence of compelling reasons.

---