https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170664 The Chief Justice's administrative power to allocate writ matters and frame rosters did not extend to creating a deeming rule that a writ cause of action arose in a particular district. Territorial jurisdiction had to be determined judicially on the facts of each case, and the explanation inserted for allocation between Jodhpur and the Jaipur Bench was therefore beyond jurisdiction and invalid. The use of the expression "exclusive jurisdiction" for the Jaipur Bench was not erroneous, because it reflected the territorial bifurcation established by the Presidential Order and remained subject to the actual cause of action under Article 226 principles. en-us Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:06:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170664 The Chief Justice's administrative power to allocate writ matters and frame rosters did not extend to creating a deeming rule that a writ cause of action arose in a particular district. Territorial jurisdiction had to be determined judicially on the facts of each case, and the explanation inserted for allocation between Jodhpur and the Jaipur Bench was therefore beyond jurisdiction and invalid. The use of the expression "exclusive jurisdiction" for the Jaipur Bench was not erroneous, because it reflected the territorial bifurcation established by the Presidential Order and remained subject to the actual cause of action under Article 226 principles. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170664