Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 failed where no cause of action arose within the High Court's limits.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether the cause of action, wholly or in part, arose within the Court's limits. As both the Tribunal's order and the original confiscation, duty and penalty orders were passed by authorities outside the High Court's territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner's registered office at Dehradun did not by itself confer jurisdiction. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable before the High Court and was dismissed without going into the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the High Court in view of the absence of any cause of action arising within its territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The impugned order of the Tribunal and the original order of confiscation, duty and penalty were both passed by authorities situated outside the territorial limits of the High Court. The mere fact that the petitioner had a registered office at Dehradun did not create territorial jurisdiction. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, jurisdiction arises only where the cause of action wholly or in part arises within the territorial limits of the Court, and the binding decisions cited applied that principle to the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable before the High Court and was dismissed without examination of the merits.

---