Territorial jurisdiction in writ petitions fails where disciplinary action and cause of action arise entirely outside the forum state.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on the respondent authority being located within the court's territorial limits or on some part of the cause of action arising there. On the stated facts, the disciplinary proceedings, enquiry, and impugned order all originated in Jharkhand, and the respondent had no office in Delhi. The petitioner's residence in Delhi was insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The Delhi High Court therefore lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the Delhi High Court in view of the objection that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction and the respondent authority was not amenable to its jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petition challenged disciplinary action taken against the petitioner by an authority whose office and the relevant proceedings were located at Sindri, Jharkhand. The order impugned, the enquiry proceedings, and the disciplinary action all emanated from Jharkhand, and the respondent had no office in Delhi. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, writ jurisdiction can be exercised either where the respondent authority is situated within the territorial limits of the High Court or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within those limits. On the facts, neither condition was satisfied. Mere residence of the petitioner in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable before the Delhi High Court for want of territorial jurisdiction.

---