HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI, J.

1. THE short question that arises for consideration in this Special Civil Application is that if the petitioner is declared a deserter in State of Assam and his representation is rejected at Gaya (Bihar), whether the cause of action to sue would be available to the petitioner to file Special Civil Application, in Gujarat High Court on the ground that he is a resident of State of Gujarat?

2. THE petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army as a Constable on 18.11.1987. He was promoted on the post of Naik. While he was in service as Naik 'C' Coy 521 ASC Battalion, Assam, he was granted leave with effect from 11.4.2006 to 16.5.2006. He overstayed after 16.5.2006 and did not return for joining Army at Assam. Therefore, he was declared deserter as he was absent from duty from 16.6.2006. The petitioner's mother Dakha started claiming regularisation of debit balance of deserter before the ASC, Records (AT) (Paharpura), Gaya, Bihar. The aforesaid authority informed Dakha that the certificate duly signed and counter-signed by District Soldiers Army Welfare Office be written, so that action may be taken. Similar letters were also sent on 27.5.2008 and 30.11.2008. The petitioner wrote a letter to the aforesaid authority on 21.11.2008 claiming pension and other retiral benefits. On 15.4.2010, the petitioner claimed pension and other retiral benefits from the office at Gaya (Bihar). He was informed on 18.4.2010 that those soldiers who are declared deserter are not paid pension. For other amounts he may write to the President of India, Central Government. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.3223 of 2010 before this Court, which was dismissed on 29.3.2010 as pre-mature. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the communication dated 28.4.2010 denying pension and has prayed for pension and other terminal benefits.

We have heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Paresh Upadhyay, counsel for the petitioner.

3. BY 15th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963, Clause (1-A) was added to Article 226(1) which was re-numbered as Clause (2) by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976. The effect of the amendment was that writ jurisdiction of the High Court was extended to those cases also where only a part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court. It is necessary to extract Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution which reads as below:-

"226(2) Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.- 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."

Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 226(2) being pari materia, it is necessary to extract Section 20(c) which reads as under:-

"20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises." The expression "cause of action" has not been defined in any Statute. Cause of action means that the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue must be within the territorial limits of the High Court and even a small fraction of right to sue accrued within the jurisdiction of the High Court. In other words, the cause of action wholly or in part must had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. "Cause of action" is the bundle of facts which taken with applicable to them, gives the petitioner a right to relief against the responde