Territorial jurisdiction in writ petitions turns on the real cause of action, not merely the authority's location or order place.

Writ jurisdiction depends on the real and substantial cause of action, namely the material, essential and integral facts giving rise to the dispute. The mere location of the respondent authority in Delhi, or the fact that the impugned order was issued from Delhi, is not enough by itself to confer territorial jurisdiction. Even where a part of the cause of action arises within the forum, the Court may decline to entertain the petition if another forum is more appropriate under forum conveniens. The petition was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in Delhi High Court when the impugned orders were issued by a Delhi-based authority but the substantive events, filings, and underlying dispute arose in Haryana.

Analysis: The decisive connection for territorial jurisdiction is the substance of the lis and the material, essential, and integral facts giving rise to the dispute. The mere location of the respondent-authority in Delhi, or the fact that the orders were passed from Delhi, is not by itself sufficient to compel entertainment of the petition. Even where a small part of the cause of action arises within the Court's territory, the Court may decline to exercise writ jurisdiction if another forum is more appropriate, applying the doctrine of forum conveniens.

Conclusion: The petition was not entertained in Delhi High Court and was dismissed on territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens grounds, with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, the Court may refuse to entertain a petition where the real and substantial cause of action lies outside its territory, notwithstanding the mere situs of the respondent or the passing of the impugned order within its jurisdiction.

---