The jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to persons or authorities within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction.

1. In this case the petitioner Shri S. L. Bhardwaj has moved the High Court for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to call up and quash an order of the Chief Medical Officer, Eastern Railway, Calcutta, dated the 27th of February 1953 removing the petitioner from Railway service.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was serving as a dispenser in the Eastern Railway at Nawadah in the district of Gaya. On 30-10-1951 proceedings were started against the petitioner by the Chief Medical Officer under Rule 2, Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules. The petitioner sent a representation in due course. On 28-12-1951 the petitioner appeared before the Committee of Advisers at Calcutta. After a long interval of time the petitioner received the order of the Chief Medical Officer Eastern Railway, Calcutta, dated 27-2-1953 removing him from service. The petitioner received the notice of removal on 3-3-1953. The case of the petitioner is that the proceeding started against the petitioner was mala fide and illegal and there was infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India.

3. In our opinion this application must be dismissed on the preliminary ground that Patna High Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the Chief Medical Officer, Eastern Railway, Calcutta. The language of Art. 226 must be closely examined in this connection. Article 226 states that the:

"High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose."

It is clear from the language of Art. 226 that there are two limitations imposed upon the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of issuing a writ. In the first place, the power of the High Court is to be exercised "throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction"; in other words, the writ issued by the High Court cannot run beyond the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. In the second place, the person or authority to whom the High Court issues the writ must be "within those territories", which means by necessary implication that the person or authority must be amenable to the (jurisdiction of the High Court either by residence or by location within those territories. These are the two conditions upon which the jurisdiction of the High Court is based and it is with reference to these two conditions that the jurisdiction of the High Court must be determined in any particular case. The argument was put forward that the petitioner was serving at Gaya and the order of dismissal was served on the petitioner at Gaya within the territorial limits of Bihar. It was said that the cause of action has accrued in Bihar and the Patna High Court has therefore the necessary jurisdiction to grant a writ under Art. 226. We are unable to accept this argument ,as correct. The test of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 is not whether the cause of action has accrued within the territorial limits of Bihar. The language of Art. 226 makes no express reference to any cause of action or where the cause of action arises. There is nothing in the language of Art. 226 to suggest that the cause of action has any relevance in determining the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ. On the other hand, the express limitation imposed by Art. 226 is that the person or authority to whom writ is issued must be within the territorial limits of the Bihar State. That is the basis of the jurisdiction which is exercised by the High Court under Art. 228 and the question whether the cause of action