Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) requires a material cause of action within the High Court's limits.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on a material part of the cause of action arising within the High Court's limits. Where the search, arrest, seizure proceedings and detention-related steps had substantially occurred outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction, the writ petition challenging a threatened detention order did not disclose a sufficient cause of action within the forum. The Court therefore held that it could not entertain the writ application, and the petition was rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition challenging the threatened detention order.

Analysis: The material events relied upon by the petitioner, including the search, arrest, seizure proceedings, and the detention-related steps, had substantially arisen outside the territorial limits of the Court. The petition did not disclose a sufficient part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Court so as to attract Article 226(2). On that basis, the Court held that it could not entertain the writ application.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable before this Court for want of territorial jurisdiction and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition cannot be entertained under Article 226(2) unless a material part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

---