Territorial writ jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on the dominant cause of action, and forum conveniens may justify refusal.

For Article 226 territorial jurisdiction, the mere fact that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, or that the respondent-authority and impugned order were located there, was not decisive. The Court held that jurisdiction depends on the substance of the lis and the material, essential and integral facts giving rise to the dispute. Where the underlying events and operative injury were substantially outside Delhi, the writ petition could be declined on the ground of forum conveniens. The petitioner was relegated to the appropriate jurisdictional High Court, and the Delhi writ petition was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained on the basis that a part of the cause of action arose within Delhi, and whether the Court should decline jurisdiction on the ground of forum conveniens.

Analysis: The Court held that although some part of the cause of action arose within Delhi, that circumstance was not, by itself, determinative of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant consideration was the substance of the lis and the material, essential and integral facts giving rise to the dispute. Where the underlying events and operative injury were substantially connected outside Delhi, the mere location of the respondent-authority or the passing of the impugned order in Delhi did not justify entertaining the writ petition. The doctrine of forum conveniens could be invoked to decline exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction, and the petitioner was relegated to the jurisdictional High Court.

Conclusion: The petition was not entertained in Delhi and was dismissed by declining to exercise territorial and discretionary writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The ruling affirms that a writ petition cannot be maintained merely because the impugned order was issued in Delhi when the real and dominant cause of action lies elsewhere.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Article 226, the mere situs of the respondent or the impugned order within the forum State is not decisive where the substantive and dominant facts arise outside that territory, and the Court may refuse to exercise writ jurisdiction on the ground of forum conveniens.

---