A writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the original cause of action for issuing the order pertaining to that case passed by a Court, tribunal or authority has arisen, irrespective of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard.

G.M. Lodha, J.-These two writ petitions relate to the grant or refusal of the permit under the provisions of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act by the Regional Transport Authority for a route which admittedly is in Bikaner Division. It is common ground that the routes in both these writ petitions are in Bikaner Division, and the Bikaner Division falls within the jurisdiction of the seat of the High Court at Jodhpur.

2. Mr. Mehta has raised a preliminary objection that since the matter relates to Bikaner Division, the writ petitions cannot be entertained at Jaipur, Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the revisional order was passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and, therefore, this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.

3. Mr. Sharma has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nasiruddin vs. State Transport-Appellate Tribunal. AIR 1976 SC 331, Mr. Mehta has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ram Rakh Vyas vs. Union of India, 1977 Raj LW 65 : (AIR 1977 Raj 243) in which validity of the notification Dt. 23-12-76 and the explanation added to it by the then Chief Justice Shri vs. P. Tyagi was considered and after taking into consideration the decision of Nasiruddin’s case, the explanation as well as the original notification was declared to be valid.

4. The short point which has been debated before me related to the question whether if the original order is of an area falling within the jurisdiction of the area covered by the seat of the High Court at Jodhpur, only on account of appellate or revisional order having been passed at Jaipur, the writ petition can be filed at Jaipur challenging that appellate or revisional order.

5. A short reply to the above debate was given by the then Chief Justice Mr. vs. P. Tyagi, by adding the explanation to notification’ Dt. 23-12-76 on 12-1-77. Extracted in paras 3 and 4 of Ram Rakh Vyas’s judgment, and which reads as under:-“A writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the cause of action for issuing the first order pertaining to that case passed by a Court, tribunal or authority has arisen irrespective of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard and irrespective also of the tact whether or not there has been any modification or reversal of the order in appeal or revision.”

6. It was made clear in order to remove all doubts and difficulties that a writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the original cause of action for issuing the order pertaining to that case passed by a Court, tribunal or authority has arisen irrespective of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard and also of the fact whether or not there has been any modification or reversal of the order in appeal or revision.

7. However, Mr. Sharma submits that this explanation is invalid and unconstitutional in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nasiruddin’s case (AIR 1976 SC 331). Relying upon the observations contained in paras 36 and 37 Mr. Sharma submits that cause of action in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution should be the expression, as is commonly understood, and if the cause of action arose because of the appellate or in an revisional order, which came to be passed at or in an area of Jaipur jurisdiction, the fact that the original order was passed at a place outside that area would not oust the jurisdiction of Jaipur, In that case, the con-troversy was between Lucknow and Allahabad. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on a discission of the implications and meaning of the phrase ‘cause of action’ decided that if partly cause of artion arises in one area and partly outside the specified area, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings either at Allahabad or Lucknow.

8. On a careful consideration of the various facets of the controversy raised before me, I am of the opinion that after the Division Bench jud