Territorial writ jurisdiction and binding court directions required statutory authorities to implement Bombay High Court orders.

Article 226(2) permits writ jurisdiction where part of the cause of action arises within the Court's territorial limits, and the reach of binding constitutional directions is not confined by State boundaries when implementation is required elsewhere. Statutory registering authorities perform a ministerial function and cannot refuse, ignore, or sit in appeal over directions issued by a Constitutional Court. Where insolvency proceedings and later alienation of secured assets formed one chain of cause of action, the Karnataka registering authorities were bound to give effect to the Bombay High Court's directions, and mandamus lay to compel compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent authorities were bound to give effect to the directions issued by the High Court of Bombay in respect of the impugned sale deeds and agreements, and whether a writ of mandamus was liable to be issued.

Analysis: The Court held that Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India enables the exercise of writ jurisdiction where a part of the cause of action arises within the territorial limits of the Court, and that the efficacy of judicial directions is not confined by State boundaries when implementation is required elsewhere. It noted that the registering authorities are statutory functionaries performing a ministerial duty, and cannot sit in appeal over, ignore, or refuse to implement binding directions issued by a Constitutional Court. The Court further found that the insolvency proceedings and the subsequent alienation of secured assets formed part of the same chain of cause of action, making the Bombay High Court's directions enforceable against the Karnataka registering authorities.

Conclusion: The respondent authorities were bound to implement the directions issued by the High Court of Bombay, and mandamus was warranted to compel compliance.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the Court directed implementation of the Bombay High Court's directions with consequential recording of entries and ancillary reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: Orders of a Constitutional Court, once passed within valid territorial jurisdiction on a part of the cause of action, are binding and enforceable on statutory authorities required to implement them, and such authorities cannot decline compliance on the ground of territorial location.

---