The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited to issuing directions, orders, or writs to persons or authorities within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

R. S. PATHAK, C. J. :- The petitioner applies under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an order of the Bar Council of India removing his name from the roll of Advocates maintained by the Bar Council of Delhi.

2. The petitioner, who at one time was a member of the judicial service, is said to have obtained his LL. B. Degree as a private candidate from the Punjab University in the year 1968 and after resigning from judicial service he applied on November 17, 1970 to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh for enrolment as an Advocate under Sec. 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana was doubtful whether the law degree obtained by the petitioner could serve to qualify him for enrolment and it referred the question to the Bar Council of India for its opinion. The petitioner now applied on March 19, 1971 to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana for withdrawing his application but there is nothing to show that any order was passed allowing the application to be withdrawn. On March 31, 1971 he applied to the Bar Council of Delhi for enrolment as an Advocate. The application was allowed and the petitioner was enrolled on April 5, 1971.

Meanwhile, on April 15, 1971, the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana made an order refusing to enroll him as an Advocate on the ground that as he had not obtained the law degree after undergoing a course of study in law for a minimum period of 2 years after graduation and has obtained it as a non-collegiate candidate he was not eligible for enrolment as an Advocate. Thereafter, the Bar Council of Delhi came to know of the proceedings before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and in May 1971, it wrote to the petitioner to explain why at the time of applying to it for enrolment he had not disclosed the fact that his enrolment had been refused by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and that he had passed the Law Examination in 3968 as a private candidate. The petitioner submitted his explanation but it was not accepted. The case was referred to the Bar Council of India under Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act. On April 30, 1972, the Bar Council of India held that the petitioner had been guilty of suppressing material facts at the time of applying for enrolment to the Bar Council of Delhi inasmuch as he did not disclose that he had made an earlier application to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, which was about to be rejected, and that his law degree was one which could not be recognised. Accordingly, acting under the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act it removed the name of the petitioner from the roll.

3. Shri D.P. Sud, learned Counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection. He urges that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition inasmuch as the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India, which passed the impugned order, is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and no part of the cause of action arises within that territorial jurisdiction. It seems to us that objection has force and must be upheld.

4. Both the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India have their seat outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The impugned proceedings were taken by them, and the impugned order removing the name of the petitioner from the roll of Advocates was passed by the Bar Council of India. Article 226(1) of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue directions, order or writs to any person or authority within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, It has no power under Article 226(1) to do so if the person or authority is situated outside those territories. Therefore, this Court has no power under Article 226(1) to grant relief against the Bar Council of Delhi or the Bar Council of India.

5. Article 226(1-A) empowers the High Court to issue directions, orders or writs if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the t