https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171894 HC held that, after the Fifteenth Amendment and insertion of Article 226(2), its territorial jurisdiction depends on two factors: (i) whether the person or authority is within its territory, and/or (ii) whether the cause of action arises wholly or in part within such territory. On facts, HC concluded it technically possessed jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. However, as the impugned order was passed by the Collector, Dhanbad, and related proceedings had earlier reached the Patna HC, principles of judicial propriety required the petitioner to approach that forum. The appeal was disposed of without examining merits, leaving parties free to agitate all issues before the appropriate HC. en-us Fri, 21 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2025 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171894 HC held that, after the Fifteenth Amendment and insertion of Article 226(2), its territorial jurisdiction depends on two factors: (i) whether the person or authority is within its territory, and/or (ii) whether the cause of action arises wholly or in part within such territory. On facts, HC concluded it technically possessed jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. However, as the impugned order was passed by the Collector, Dhanbad, and related proceedings had earlier reached the Patna HC, principles of judicial propriety required the petitioner to approach that forum. The appeal was disposed of without examining merits, leaving parties free to agitate all issues before the appropriate HC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 21 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171894