The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction, as defined in Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged order bearing No.ESTT/116/SSFC/GL/2010/10958-70 dated 10th May, 2010, whereby he has been dismissed from service.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, he was selected as a Water Carrier in Border Security Force (BSF) on 1st November, 1991 and was posted at SHQ Bandipora upto the year 1994. In the year 1996, he was dismissed from service on the basis of a charge that he had submitted false information that his qualification was 9th class pass. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of his discharge from service by way of a writ petition bearing SWP No.2080/97 before this Court and on the basis of an interim order passed by this Court, he was reinstated vide order dated 23rd June, 1997. Accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to work as Water Carrier. However, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and the petitioner was again dismissed from service vide SHQ BSF Bandipora order No.Adm/143/GB/98/10175-81 dated 9th October, 1998. The writ petition was restored to its original number by this Court in terms of order dated 23.04.1999 and consequent upon restoration of the writ petition, the petitioner was again allowed to work as Water Carrier in terms of order No.6796-804 dated 6th August, 1999, issued by SHQ, Bandipora. The writ petition was finally allowed by this Court in terms of order dated 23.07.2008 and the order of discharge of the petitioner from service was quashed. In compliance to the judgment of this Court, the petitioner was reinstated with effect from 25th June, 1995, in terms of the order issued by Commandant 116 Bn. BSF, Maheshpur (West Bengal) on 28th November, 2008.

3. It seems that the respondents initiated an enquiry against the petitioner on the same charge on which he was discharged on an earlier occasion and after holding the enquiry, the impugned order came to be passed by Commandant 116 Bn. BSF, Loktak Manipur. It is this order which is under challenge by way of instant writ petition before this Court.

4. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that no part of cause of action has accrued in favour of the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, as such, writ petition is not maintainable before this Court.

5. Having regard to the nature of preliminary objection raised by the respondents, it would be apt to deal with the said objection in the first instance.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that none of the respondents is based within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and that no part of cause of action has arisen in favour of the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, as such, the writ petition before this Court is not maintainable.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petition has been admitted to hearing and the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition has not been pressed by the respondents at any stage of these proceedings.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

9. Article 226 of the Constitution of India defines the power of High Courts to issue writs. Clause (2) of the said Article defines the territorial limits within which the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction. It reads as under:

(2) 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.

10. From a perusal of the language of Clause (2) of Article 226 quoted above, it is clear that irrespective of the seat of the Government or t