https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273533 Article 226 jurisdiction depended on whether any part of the cause of action arose within Uttar Pradesh. The impugned orders were made in Bihar by the Cane Commissioner and concerned villages in Bihar, so the territorial connection was absent. Mere communication of one order to the petitioner's factory in Uttar Pradesh did not create a material part of the cause of action because the legally operative communication was by Gazette notification. A reservation under Clause 6(a) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 conferred only a privilege, not an enforceable right against growers; enforceable obligations would arise only under later orders under Clause 6(c) or 6(d), which were not issued. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable in the Allahabad High Court. en-us Mon, 01 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:18:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273533 Article 226 jurisdiction depended on whether any part of the cause of action arose within Uttar Pradesh. The impugned orders were made in Bihar by the Cane Commissioner and concerned villages in Bihar, so the territorial connection was absent. Mere communication of one order to the petitioner's factory in Uttar Pradesh did not create a material part of the cause of action because the legally operative communication was by Gazette notification. A reservation under Clause 6(a) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 conferred only a privilege, not an enforceable right against growers; enforceable obligations would arise only under later orders under Clause 6(c) or 6(d), which were not issued. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable in the Allahabad High Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273533