The main legal point established in the judgment is the criteria for determining the maintainability of a petition based on the territorial limits of the cause of action, as laid down in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia.

JUDGMENT

Sunil B. Shukre, J. - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties present before the Court.

2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has taken an objection to the maintainability of this petition before this Court as the writ sought by the petitioners is to be directed against a Court of Metropolitan Magistrate situated at Kolkata. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue has been settled by the Apex Court in it's decision in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia V/s. State of Maharashtra and others, (2000) 7 SCC 640. Shri Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor agrees. He submits that this Court would have to decide the objection as to the maintainability of the petition on the parameters set out in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra). In the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra), the Supreme Court considered the effect of clause (2) of Article 226 which was inserted in the Constitution through 15th Amendment. The Apex Court observed that the power conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 could be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises and it is no matter that the seat of the authority concerned is outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High Court. The relevant paragraphs in which these observations appear, for the sake of convenience, are reproduced as under:-

"36. It was the said decision of the Constitution Bench which necessitated Parliament to bring the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution by which clause (1-A) was added to Article 226. That clause was subsequently renumbered as clause (2) by the Constitution Forty-Second Amendment. Now clause (2) of Article 226 read thus:

"226(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."

37. The object of the amendment by inserting clause (2) in the article was to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court in Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao and to restore the view held by the High Courts in the decisions cited above. Thus the power conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which "the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises" and it is no matter that the seat of the authority concerned is outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High Court. The amendment is thus aimed at widening the width of the area for reaching the writs issued by different High Courts."

3. The Supreme Court then went on to lay down the criteria on the basis of which the issues of maintainability of such a petition be decided. It was held that mere fact that F.I.R. was registered in a particular State would not be a sole criteria to decide that no cause of action has arisen within parts of territorial limits of another Court. It further held that place of residence of the person moving the Court is not the criteria to determine the cause of action in that particular petition. Then, the Apex Court observed that High Court before which the writ petition is filed must ascertain whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of it's jurisdiction and this would depend upon facts of each case. It also found that where part of the investigation is carried out, the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over that place would also have the jurisdiction in such matters. It would be useful for us to reproduce these observations made in paragraphs 43, 44