Jurisdiction of the High Court is determined by the location of the cause of action, and the receipt of amount in a different location does not constitute a part of the cause of action.

1. An order of termination of service of a constable in the service of Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau is questioned in this O. P. It is not disputed that the order concerned marked as Ex-P3 in the case was passed by the Asst. Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Kohima, Nagaland and served on the petitioner in Nagaland. But the amount due to the petitioner, viz., the sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice, which is one month as per R.5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules is paid to him only in Kerala.

2. A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the petition by the learned Central Government Pleader contending that the whole cause of action for the petition has arisen out of the State and, therefore, the O. P. is not maintainable in this court. As per the amendment of Art.226 of the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, the power conferred by the said Article 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 powers notwithstanding that the scat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.

3. In this case the seat of the authority who issued the order is not within the territory over which this court has jurisdiction. But then if the cause of action has arisen atleast in part in this territory over which this court has jurisdiction, then certainly the writ petition would be maintainable.

4. What is contended for on behalf of the respondents by Sri Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the Central Government is that it cannot be said that in this case the cause of action wholly or in part arises in any place in the jurisdiction of this court. On the other hand, Sri Abraham Vakkanal, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that as the petitioner has received the amount due to him consequent on the impugned order, in Kerala State it has to be said that part of the cause of action has arisen here and therefore this court could well proceed with the O. P. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions reported in Dammomal Kausomal Raisinghani v. Union of India (AIR 1967 Born. 355); Joshi v. State of Bombay (AIR 1959 Born. 363) and Veeri Chettiar v. Sales Tax Officer, Bombay (AIR 1971 Mad. 155). In all these cases the order impugned though passed outside the jurisdiction of the particular court concerned, was served on the petitioners in these cases in a place within the jurisdiction of the courts in which the writ petitions had been filed. Therefore the effect of the order by Governmental authority fell on the petitioners at places where the courts had jurisdiction. On the basis of that fact the courts held in these cases that they can exercise jurisdiction in respect of such matters as part of the cause of action had arisen within the territories over which they could exercise jurisdiction. It is Mr. Abraham's case that the receipt of the amount by the petitioner in Kerala was the necessary consequence of the order of termination. In one sense it is certainly the consequence of the order of termination; but one cannot say that the effect of the order really fell on the petitioner in Kerala. The order took effect in Nagaland itself and on the basis of the order the petitioner received the amount in Kerala. By the receipt of the amount it cannot be said that part of the cause of action had arisen in Kerala. The cause of action as the Madras High court pointed out in the decision referred to, has always been understood as referable to the bundle of facts in a legal proceeding and if a limb of that bundle of facts is available, seen or discernible in one particular place which is within the jurisdiction of the High Court, then the