Article 226 territorial jurisdiction: tribunal order passed at Chennai gave the High Court jurisdiction to hear the writ petition.

Under Article 226(2), territorial jurisdiction is conferred where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. An impugned order passed by a tribunal at Chennai created part of the cause of action there, so the Madras High Court's Principal Seat at Chennai had jurisdiction despite the appellant being situated in Pudukottai and the Madurai Bench arrangement. The contrary view was held unsustainable, and the writ petition was directed to be numbered and placed before the learned single Judge for admission.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Principal Seat at Chennai had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order passed at Chennai, despite the appellant being situated in Pudukottai and the Madurai Bench notification.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) turns on where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. An order passed by a court, tribunal, or authority gives rise to part of the cause of action at the place where that order is made. Since the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal at Chennai, the grievance of the appellant arose at Chennai. The existence of the Madurai Bench arrangement did not exclude the Principal Seat's jurisdiction where part of the cause of action arose within Chennai.

Conclusion: The Principal Seat at Chennai had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition; the contrary view of the learned single Judge was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the writ petition was directed to be numbered and placed before the learned single Judge for admission.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Article 226(2), the place where the impugned appellate or tribunal order is passed is a place where part of the cause of action arises, and that alone is sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction on the High Court.

---