Article 226 jurisdiction and forum conveniens: petitioner's lawful choice of forum prevails where authority's seat supports maintainability.

Article 226 jurisdiction may rest on the seat of the authority or on part of the cause of action, and the employee's posting outside the territorial limits does not by itself defeat maintainability. Where the impugned order is issued by an authority within the Bench's territory, the writ can be entertained even if some facts arise elsewhere. When concurrent jurisdiction exists, forum conveniens is ordinarily assessed from the petitioner's standpoint as dominus litis, and the State's preference cannot override a lawful forum choice unless jurisdiction is otherwise lacking. On that basis, orders refusing jurisdiction on forum conveniens were unsustainable and the matters were restored for merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition is maintainable before the Bench within whose territorial jurisdiction the impugned order was issued, even if the affected employee is posted outside that territory; (ii) whether a writ petition can be entertained on the basis of the seat of the authority where part of the cause of action also arises outside that territory; (iii) whether the principle of forum conveniens is to be assessed from the standpoint of the petitioner or the State.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition is maintainable before the Bench within whose territorial jurisdiction the impugned order was issued, even if the affected employee is posted outside that territory.

Analysis: Article 226 confers jurisdiction both on the basis of the seat of the authority and on the basis of cause of action. Where the impugned order is issued by an authority located within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the writ court has jurisdiction even if the petitioner is posted elsewhere. The location of the employee does not by itself displace jurisdiction arising from the seat of the authority.

Conclusion: Yes. The writ petition is maintainable on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ petition can be entertained on the basis of the seat of the authority where part of the cause of action also arises outside that territory.

Analysis: Clause (1) and clause (2) of Article 226 operate independently. The seat of the authority can confer jurisdiction, and the existence of a part of the cause of action within the same territory also supports maintainability. The fact that some part of the cause of action may arise elsewhere does not negate jurisdiction where the authority is seated and has acted within the territory.

Conclusion: Yes. The writ petition can be filed on the basis of the authority's seat in such circumstances.

Issue (iii): Whether the principle of forum conveniens is to be assessed from the standpoint of the petitioner or the State.

Analysis: Where more than one High Court or Bench has concurrent jurisdiction, the petitioner as dominus litis has the choice of forum. Forum conveniens cannot be used to defeat a forum otherwise legitimately chosen by the petitioner merely on the State's preference or convenience, particularly when the authority's seat and substantial cause of action lie within the chosen jurisdiction.

Conclusion: It is to be tested from the standpoint of the petitioner, not the convenience of the State.

Final Conclusion: The orders declining jurisdiction on the ground of forum conveniens were unsustainable, the writ petitions were maintainable before the Principal Bench, and the matters were restored for reconsideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: When a writ petition is otherwise maintainable under Article 226 by reason of the authority's seat or a part of the cause of action, concurrent jurisdiction belongs to the petitioner as dominus litis, and forum conveniens cannot be applied to defeat that lawful choice unless jurisdiction is otherwise lacking.

---