Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 fails where the real cause of action lies elsewhere and forum shopping is evident.

Under Article 226, territorial jurisdiction depends on where the material cause of action arises, not merely on the location of a respondent authority's office. Because the dispute, subject property, construction work, arbitration proceedings, execution and attachment were all centred in Tamil Nadu, and similar reliefs had earlier been sought before the Madras High Court before withdrawal, the Delhi High Court treated the petitions as forum shopping and declined to exercise writ jurisdiction. The writ petitions were dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, applying the doctrine of forum conveniens, where the material events, the subject property, and the principal dispute were situated in Tamil Nadu and similar reliefs had earlier been sought before the Madras High Court.

Analysis: The pleadings and surrounding facts showed that the dispute stemmed from a private controversy over construction work, arbitration, execution proceedings, and attachment of property, all centered in Tamil Nadu. The mere presence of the respondent authorities' offices in Delhi did not, by itself, constitute a material or integral part of the cause of action for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court also noted that similar reliefs had earlier been pursued before the Madras High Court and that the present petitions were filed after withdrawal there, indicating an attempt to choose a different forum. In these circumstances, the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable before this Court and were dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Article 226, the situs of a respondent authority's office is not ative where the material cause of action has arisen elsewhere; in an appropriate case, the High Court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of forum conveniens and forum shopping.

---