The Delhi High Court in H.S. Rai v/s UOI & Ors observed that the High Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India either when the person or authority to which the writ is to be issued is located within its territory, or the cause of action, in part or whole, arises within its territory.
At the very outset, the maintainability of the instant petition was challenged by the Respondents. Hence, the Court deemed it necessary to look into whether it has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the challenge to the penalty order dated 16th January 2003 passed against the petitioner. The respondents have alleged that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi, since the petitioner was posted at Sindri, Jharkhand at the relevant time and course of actions which have given rise to the filing of the instant petition.
To answer the above issue, the Court referred to Nirman Sarkar vs. Canara bank and Ors., wherein it has been held that
“6. The issue as regards the territorial jurisdiction has been summarized by the Apex Court. Kusum Ingots (supra) the Apex Court in Paragraph No. 27 held as under:
27. When an order, however, is passed by a Court or Tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words, as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the appellate authority.”
Also, in the case of Lieutenant Colonel Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of India spoke about the language of Article 226, and it was observed that :
“The concept of cause of action cannot in our opinion be introduced in Article 226, for by doing so we shall be doing away with the express provision contained therein which requires that the person or authority to whom the writ is to be issued should be resident in or located within the territories over which the High Court has jurisdiction. It is true that this may result in some inconvenience to persons residing far away from New Delhi who are aggrieved by some order of the Government of India as amendment in Article 226. But the argument of inconvenience, in our opinion, cannot affect the plain language of Article 226, nor can the concept of the place of cause of action be introduced into it for that would do away, with the two limitations on the powers of the High Court contained in it.”
In light of this, the Court observed that the original authority as well as the appellate authority both were constituted and made their respective reports and orders at Jharkhand. The petitioner could not have approached this Court merely for the reason of being a resident of Delhi and falling within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.