https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196988 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether a part of the cause of action arises within the High Court's limits. Mere arrest of a detenu in Punjab did not confer jurisdiction where the detention order was made in Maharashtra, the grounds of detention were served there, the alleged prejudicial activities arose there, and the representation was processed there. On those facts, no material connection with Punjab and Haryana was shown, so the writ challenge to the detention order was not maintainable before that High Court. en-us Tue, 12 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:24:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196988 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether a part of the cause of action arises within the High Court's limits. Mere arrest of a detenu in Punjab did not confer jurisdiction where the detention order was made in Maharashtra, the grounds of detention were served there, the alleged prejudicial activities arose there, and the representation was processed there. On those facts, no material connection with Punjab and Haryana was shown, so the writ challenge to the detention order was not maintainable before that High Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196988