https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294049 An advocate, lacking personal grievance, could not maintain a collateral writ in representative or public interest form to challenge the Registry's filing practice. The Court held that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 must be determined case by case on the cause of action, and that neither the Chief Justice's administrative powers nor prior interim directions could justify a blanket directive governing filing or transfer of writ matters between benches. On that basis, the requested mandamus was unsustainable and the petition was not maintainable. en-us Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Mar 2021 17:07:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294049 An advocate, lacking personal grievance, could not maintain a collateral writ in representative or public interest form to challenge the Registry's filing practice. The Court held that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 must be determined case by case on the cause of action, and that neither the Chief Justice's administrative powers nor prior interim directions could justify a blanket directive governing filing or transfer of writ matters between benches. On that basis, the requested mandamus was unsustainable and the petition was not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294049