https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275874 Article 226 confers writ jurisdiction where the authority is located within the court's territory or where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part. The Karnataka High Court treated the Dharwad and Gulbarga Bench arrangements as administrative distribution of work, not a constitutional restriction on the Principal Bench's power. Because the impugned suspension order and the Tribunal's order were both connected to Bangalore, a material part of the cause of action arose there. The petitioner's residence and the district origin of the service dispute did not by themselves oust jurisdiction. The registry could not conclusively reject the petition at scrutiny on territorial grounds; that question had to be decided by the Judge. The writ petition was maintainable before the Principal Bench. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Oct 2018 18:52:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275874 Article 226 confers writ jurisdiction where the authority is located within the court's territory or where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part. The Karnataka High Court treated the Dharwad and Gulbarga Bench arrangements as administrative distribution of work, not a constitutional restriction on the Principal Bench's power. Because the impugned suspension order and the Tribunal's order were both connected to Bangalore, a material part of the cause of action arose there. The petitioner's residence and the district origin of the service dispute did not by themselves oust jurisdiction. The registry could not conclusively reject the petition at scrutiny on territorial grounds; that question had to be decided by the Judge. The writ petition was maintainable before the Principal Bench. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275874