IMPORTANT POINT
High Court can exercise power to issue direction, order or writ for enforcement of any fundamental rights or for any other purpose if the cause of action wholly to in part had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercised jurisdiction.

Headnote:Constitution of India — Article 226 — High Court Jurisdiction — High Court could exercise power to issue direction, order or writ if the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercised jurisdiction — Expression "cause of action" meant every fact which it was necessary to establish to support a right to obtain a judgment — Appellant filed writ petition before Delhi High Court that he was being tried in several cases contrary to extradition decree which was in violation of Section 21 of Extradition Act and that he was being kept in solitary confinement without proper medical aid in Central Jail in State of U.P. — High Court disposed of writ holding that Allahabad High Court would have also jurisdiction to deal with grievances of writ petitioner and could deal with more effectively — Appeal — High Court did not deal with question whether it had jurisdiction to deal with writ petition — Disposal of writ that Allahabad High Court could deal with matter more effectively was not a correct way to deal with writ petition — Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and matter remanded for fresh hearing.
       Held : Two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution on plain reading give clear indication that the High Court can exercise power to issue direction, order or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories.(Para 8)
       The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense "cause of action" means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, as noted above the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action". (See Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India and Ors. (2001 (2) SCC 294).(Para 12)
       In the instant case the High Court has not dealt with the question as to whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the writ petition. It only observed that the Delhi High Court may have jurisdiction, but the issues relating to conditions of prisoners in the State of U.P. can be more effectively dealt with by the Allahabad High Court. As noted supra, there were two grievances by the appellant. But only one of them i.e. the alleged lack of medical facilities has been referred to by the High Court. It was open to the Delhi High Court to say that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The High Court in the impugned order does not say so. On the contrary, it says that jurisdiction may be there, but the Allahabad High Court can deal with the matter more effectively. That is not certainly a correct way to deal with the writ petition. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh hearing on merits.(Para 18)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India depends on whether the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the territorial limits of that High Court. The High Court can issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for other purposes if this condition is met, regardless of the residence of the person or the seat of the government involved (!) .
The term "cause of action" is a well-established legal concept, meaning every fact necessary to support a right to obtain a judgment. It includes all facts that must be proved to establish the claim, and it is not limited to the infringement of rights alone but also includes the circumstances that form the infraction of the right (!) .
In cases where a writ petition is filed, the question of jurisdiction hinges on whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. Merely suggesting that another High Court could deal more effectively with the matter does not automatically confer jurisdiction or negate the original court's jurisdiction (!) .
The exercise of jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 226 is not dependent on the location of the government or authority involved but is primarily based on where the facts constituting the cause of action have arisen. This ensures that courts can address grievances effectively within their territorial limits (!) (!) .
The legal definition of "cause of action" encompasses the entire set of facts that give rise to a legal claim, including those necessary to establish the infringing act and the right claimed. It is a comprehensive concept that supports the maintenance of a suit or petition in a court of law (!) (!) .
When a High Court considers whether it has jurisdiction, it must examine whether the facts supporting the claim or grievance have a sufficient connection to its territorial jurisdiction, rather than relying solely on the convenience or perceived effectiveness of another court (!) .
The doctrine emphasizes that jurisdiction is based on the origin of the facts constituting the cause of action, and courts should not dismiss or dismissively refer cases to other jurisdictions solely on the basis of efficiency or better suitability, unless the cause of action itself falls outside their territorial limits (!) .

These points collectively clarify the principles regarding territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226, especially emphasizing the importance of the origin of facts constituting the cause of action in determining jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. — Leave granted.

2. Appellant calls in question legality of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court disposing of the Writ Petition (W.P. (Crl.) No.201/2005) filed by the appellant holding that the Allahabad High Court would have also jurisdiction to deal with grievances of the writ petitioner and can deal with conditions of prisoners in that State more effectively, though the Delhi High Court may have jurisdiction.

3. Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows:

Appellant had filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court taking the stand that he was being tried in several cases contrary to the extradition decree. Appellant came to India by way of extradition from Singapore. Presently, the appellant was facing trial in eight cases which is in complete violation of the provisions of Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (in short the Extradition Act). He had also pleaded that he was being kept in solitary confinement without proper medical aid in the Central Jail in the State of U.P. It is to be noted that the appellant had filed the Writ Petition (Crl.) No.54 of 2005 before this Court which was withdrawn by him in order to enable him to move appropriate High Court for redressal of his grievances, if any. Appellant had filed a writ petition as afore-noted in the Delhi High Court which came to be disposed of by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the choice of the High Court is entirely that of the writ petitioner. It is not in dispute that in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution) the appellant could file the writ petition in Delhi High Court. Merely because he had a choice of going before the Allahabad High Court, the Delhi High Court should not have refused to consider the writ petition stating that the Allahabad High Court can deal with conditions of prisoners in the State of Uttar Pradesh more effectively. It is submitted that the basic grievance of the appellant related to alleged violation of the terms of Extradition Act as provided in Section 21 thereof. Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that there is no violation of any term, practically no part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi and the Delhi High Court has rightly observed that the appellant can pursue his remedy if any before the Allahabad High Court.

5. In the present appeal, we are not concerned with the question whether there is any violation of the terms of Extradition Act. The only question that needs consideration is whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Delhi High Court accepted that it may have jurisdiction but it was of the view that the grievance can be more effectively dealt with by the Allahabad High Court.

6. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution is of great importance. It reads as follows:

"(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories."

7. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Courts jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof.

8. Two clauses of Article 226 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 657

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court can exercise power to issue direction, order or writ for enforcement of any fundamental rights or for any other purpose if the cause of action wholly to in part had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercised jurisdiction.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court can exercise power to issue direction, order or writ for enforcement of any fundamental rights or for any other purpose if the cause of action wholly to in part had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercised jurisdiction.