Writ petition against central government dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226

Kerala HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought directions to central government authorities to finalize selection for central pool seats. The court held that writ petitions against central government can only be maintained where cause of action arises wholly or partially within Kerala HC's territorial limits. The court distinguished between "cause of action" and "right of action," noting Article 226(2) uses the former term. Since the decision-making authorities were located in New Delhi and no facts having nexus to Kerala's territorial limits needed to be proved, the petitioner was directed to approach Delhi HC instead.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition.
2. Territorial jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court u/s 226 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Writ Petition
The appellant, a candidate who appeared for the pre-medical entrance examination conducted by the 3rd respondent institute, sought nomination to the central pool seats reserved for nominees of the Government of India. The appellant's application for nomination under the category "Ward of defence personnel" yielded no response, leading him to file a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to finalize the select list of nominees in accordance with the prospectus. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge on the issue of maintainability, stating that the petitioner must approach the concerned Court having jurisdiction over the 3rd respondent.

Issue 2: Territorial Jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court u/s 226 of the Constitution of India
The appellant contended that the Kerala High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition u/s 226 of the Constitution, as his application was preferred from Kerala and he was a resident of Kerala. He argued that the non-communication of any decision on his application would affect his rights in Kerala, thus a part of his cause of action arose in Kerala. The respondents argued that the decision on the application was to be taken in Delhi and pertained to admission to an institute in Maharashtra, thus the High Courts in those States had jurisdiction.

The Court examined the legislative history and judicial interpretations of "cause of action" u/s 226(2) of the Constitution. It noted that a High Court could issue a writ if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arose within its territorial jurisdiction. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments to elucidate the term "cause of action" and concluded that the appellant's right to a fair consideration of his candidature for nomination did not establish a cause of action within the territorial limits of the Kerala High Court. The decision to be taken by the 1st and 2nd respondents was to be made in New Delhi, and thus, the appellant would have to approach the High Court in New Delhi for relief.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the Court holding that no cause of action, either wholly or in part, arose within the jurisdictional limits of the Kerala High Court. The appellant was directed to approach the appropriate Court for appropriate relief. No costs were awarded.

---