Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 requires a real cause of action nexus; booking and communications alone were insufficient.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on concrete facts showing that a real part of the cause of action arose within the High Court's limits. Mere booking of a consignment at Srinagar, or receipt of communications there, was insufficient where the pleadings did not identify suppliers, place of manufacture, or any specific factual link to Jammu and Kashmir. Because the seizure, proposed confiscation, and related criminal proceedings arose from actions taken at Delhi, the proper forum was held to be Delhi and the writ petitions in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh were not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petitions on the basis that part of the cause of action arose at Srinagar, and whether the writ petitions could be maintained there despite the seizure, proposed confiscation, and criminal proceedings having arisen from actions taken at Delhi.

Analysis: The consignment was booked from Srinagar, but the pleadings did not disclose the identity or location of the suppliers, the place of manufacture, or any specific factual basis to show that the alleged offence or seizure-related cause of action arose within Jammu and Kashmir. Mere booking of the goods at Srinagar and receipt of communications there did not by themselves establish a part of the cause of action within the territorial limits of the High Court. The seizure of the goods and the consequential proceedings were initiated at Delhi, and on the facts pleaded the appropriate forum was therefore the courts at Delhi. The principle that even a part of the cause of action can confer writ jurisdiction did not assist the appellant in the absence of concrete foundational facts.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, and the objection to territorial jurisdiction was rightly sustained.

Final Conclusion: The common judgment of the Writ Court was affirmed, and the intra-court appeals failed because the territorial nexus pleaded was insufficient to invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) depends on concrete facts showing that a real part of the cause of action arose within the court's limits; a bare place of booking or receipt of communications, without more, is insufficient where the operative seizure and proceedings occurred elsewhere.

---