The cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the court for it to entertain a writ application.

1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court so as to entitle it to entertain and decide the writ application. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 1-3-2001 in CWJC No. 9616 of 1999 held that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and accordingly dismissed the writ application for want of territorial jurisdiction.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was enrolled in the Bihar Regiment on 26th November, 1997 and taken on strength as a Sepoy in this unit on 9th November, 1998 at Cooch Bihar (West Bengal). During Kargil War (Vijay Operation), the appellant was despatched to participate in the said operation on 20-5-1999 and was moved to Battalik Sector. One of his fellow Sepoy Arvind Kumar Pandey belonging to the district of West Champaran died on 29th May, 1999 during the combat. The appellant was asked to hand over the dead of said Martyr Arvind Kumar Pandey to his parent at his native village and was given a movement order with a direction to return back within the period mentioned in the movement order. The appellant escorted the dead body and finally the dead body was cremated. The appellant though asked to return back to the unit after expiry of temporary duty, did not appear. His whereabouts were not known and thereafter a telegram was sent to him to report on duty and he joined the duty on 22nd July, 1999. A decision was taken to initiate summary Court Martial proceeding for his absence under Sec. 39(a) of the Army Act, 1950 and the appellant participated in the said proceeding and put his signature on the relevant documents. Thereafter, punishment of dismissal was awarded. On 26th July, 1999 in presence of all the Jawans of the Unit, he was informed that he has been dismissed from service and the relevant documents including warrant dated 26th July, 1999, from Jammu Tawi to village home was also given to him. Subsequently, a letter dated 26th July, 1999 was also sent to the mother of the appellant informing her about the dismissal from service of her son. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application.

3. The appellant filed the said writ application challenging the order of dismissal on several grounds. It is not necessary to state the same for the reasons that the only question involved in this appeal is as to whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ application or not.

4. A counter-affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ application in which it was stated that the order of dismissal was passed in presence of the appellant at Battalik where the Unit was in operation. A letter sent to the mother of the appellant was only for the purpose of information to the next of his kin which is being done in a routine manner to keep the family members duly informed of such development, so that the appellant would not indulge in any mischief after returning back to home. Thus, no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

5. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, as stated above, held that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ application.

6. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it stood prior to insertion of Clause 1-A by 15th Amendment Act, 1963, there were two limitations in exercise of power by the High Court. One was that the power was to be exercised throughout the territory in which the High Court exercises its jurisdiction and the other was that the person or the authority to whom writ can be issued must reside within the territory subject to jurisdiction of the High Court. In other words, the High Court was not empowered to issue writ beyond the territory subject to jurisdiction and to the persons who have neither th