Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 requires a part of the cause of action within the court's limits; mere communication is insufficient.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether a part of the cause of action arises within the High Court's limits. Where the alleged misconduct, court martial, disciplinary action and appellate decision all occurred outside those limits, mere communication of the appellate order within the jurisdiction does not create jurisdiction. Earlier entertainment of the writ petition and party consent could not confer jurisdiction where none existed. The High Court therefore had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the disciplinary and appellate orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition challenging the disciplinary and appellate orders.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on whether at least a part of the cause of action arises within the High Court's territorial limits. The impugned conduct related to alleged omissions committed while the petitioner was serving at Port Blair in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the court martial was held there, and the impugned disciplinary and appellate decisions were also taken outside the territorial limits of the Court. Mere communication of the appellate decision to the petitioner while he was within the Court's jurisdiction did not create a part of the cause of action. The earlier entertainment of a writ petition did not bar the jurisdictional objection, and consent could not confer jurisdiction where none existed.

Conclusion: The High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

---