Writ jurisdiction and forum convenience: Bombay HC declined to entertain a petition where the real connecting factors lay in Gujarat.

Where part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, the HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226(2) because the real and substantial connecting factors were in Gujarat. The parties, the property sought to be attached, and the impugned order under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were all linked to Gujarat, so forum convenience favoured the Gujarat High Court. The petition was therefore not entertained in Bombay and the matter was directed to be pursued before the Gujarat High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India when part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits, but the contesting parties, the property, and the impugned action were all connected with Gujarat.

Analysis: The petition invoked territorial jurisdiction on the basis that the impugned attachment notice was received in Mumbai and the property was purchased in Mumbai. Even if a part of the cause of action could be said to have arisen within the Court's jurisdiction, the material connecting factors were situated in Gujarat, namely the parties, the property sought to be attached, and the authorities who passed the impugned order under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Applying the doctrine of forum convenience, the more appropriate forum was the Gujarat High Court.

Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and directed that the matter be pursued before the Gujarat High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a part of the cause of action arises within jurisdiction, the Court may still decline to entertain the petition on forum convenience when the real and substantial connecting factors lie elsewhere.

---