Territorial writ jurisdiction under Article 226 may be declined when the substantial cause of action arises outside the forum state.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, and the mere location of the impugned authority within Delhi did not compel the High Court to entertain the writ petitions. Where the petitioners, underlying transactions, and show-cause notices were situated outside Delhi, and the substantial or significant part of the cause of action arose elsewhere, the Court could decline to exercise jurisdiction. The availability of an appropriate alternative forum supported refusal to entertain the petitions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should exercise territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 where the impugned order was passed by an authority located within Delhi but the petitioners, the underlying transactions, and the show-cause notices were situated outside Delhi.

Analysis: The existence of a part of the cause of action within territorial limits does not compel the High Court to entertain the petition. The governing principle is one of discretion, and the Court may decline to exercise writ jurisdiction where the substantial or significant part of the cause of action arises elsewhere. The place where the appellate or quasi-judicial authority is located is not, by itself, sufficient to require entertainment of the writ petition when the dispute is otherwise centred outside the forum State and an appropriate alternative forum is available.

Conclusion: The High Court declined to exercise territorial jurisdiction and refused to entertain the writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: For writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the mere location of the impugned authority within the Court's territory does not require the Court to entertain the petition if the substantial cause of action arises elsewhere and forum conveniens justifies refusal.

---