The concept of 'jurisdictional High Court' based on residence or location is impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the litigant has the right to go to a Court where part of the cause of action arises.

( 1 ) THIS intra-Court appeal involves certain constitutional issues of farreaching consequences. By the impugned order, the learned Single judge has declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 vested in this Court on the ground that the petitioner-institution should seek the desired relief before its jurisdictional High Court (Madras High Court) though the original order (Annexure-C), which created the Us, was passed at Bangalore by the 3rd respondent-Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education (in short the 'regional Committee' ).

( 2 ) LET us have resume of relevant facts. The appellant-institution claims to be situated at Veeravanallur in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is claimed to have been established by E. Managayarkarasi alias Grace dorris Hannah and his wife. The institution intended to offer course of training in teacher education. As such, it made an application to the regional Committee on 9-2-1996 seeking recognition under the National council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (in short the 'ncte Act') as a new institution. The said application was rejected by the Regional Committee by its order dated 28-4-1999 (Annexure-C) solely on the ground that the Government of Tamil Nadu under its order dated 14-10-1997 has refused to grant "no Objection Certificate".

( 3 ) THE above order was assailed by the appellant-institution in a statutory appeal preferred under Section 18 of the NCTE Act before the national Council for Teacher Education (in short the 'council' ). The council by its order dated 9-10-2000 (Annexure-N) confirmed the order of the Regional Committee. Aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate Authority, the institution filed writ petition in which the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge. For declining to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge has formulated the following five principles, which, according to him, are well-settled and well-recognised. (A) That except for the territorial limitation placed upon a High court by the Constitution, there is really'no limit upon the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue prerogative writs, except selfimposed limitations; (B) The jurisdiction under Article 226 being an extraordinary original jurisdiction, issue of writs is purely discretionary and no petitioner can claim the relief under Article 226 as a matter of right; (C) Where there is adequate jurisdiction in another High Court to deal satisfactorily with a case, a High Court may, in appropriate cases, refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226, and leave the petitioner to pursue his remedy in the other High Court. (D) Irrespective of the relief sought, the High Court may mould the relief to be granted to meet the peculiar or special circumstances of a case. (E) Where the order passed by a Statutory Authority situated within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court merges in the order of the Appellate Authority which is situated outside its jurisdiction, unless there is any other factor giving rise to any cause of action within its territories, such High Court will not entertain a writ petitioner, merely on the ground the original authority is located within its territorial jurisdiction.

( 4 ) AFTER formulating the above principles, the learned Single Judge has taken the view that since the petitioner-institution is situated in the state of Tamil Nadu and it does not carry on any activity in the State of karnataka, therefore, the Madras High Court is the only "jurisdictional high Court" for the appellant. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that since the order passed by the Council at Bangalore has merged with the order of the Appellate Authority i. e. , Council at Delhi and which is the only surviving order, the same cannot be questioned before this Court because no part of cause of action in relation to the appellate order had arisen within the territory li