Writ Court cannot go beyond territorial jurisdiction.

P.K. Misra, J.

The present appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the W.P.No.742 of 2004 solely on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. The entire order of the learned Single Judge is extracted herein:

"The respondents against whom the relief is sought for are 1 to 4. None of them are within the jurisdiction of this Court. Clause 2 of the Art.226 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

"The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders of 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".

"In the light of the above said clause, this writ petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. No costs."

2. The only question to be considered in this present appeal is as to whether the learned Single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petition only on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

3. Clause (2) of Art.226 of the Constitution of India has already been extracted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and it is not necessary to extract the said provisions again. A bare perusal of the aforesaid, clause, makes it clear that notwithstanding the fact that the seat of Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom writ application is, filed is not within the territory of the concerned High Court, the High Court may exercise the jurisdiction if the cause of action wholly or in part arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.

4. In the present case, even though the learned single Judge has not given any reason, it can be assumed that the learned single Judge has proceeded on the footing that no part of the cause of action has Arisen within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench). The only question to be decided in the appeal is as to whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench).

5. For the purpose of finding out whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court, obviously the averments made in the writ petition are to be considered. In the present case, the appellant has filed the writ petition for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records from the file of the third respondent, viz., the Record Officer, Office of the Records, Sena Police Corps., Abhilekh Karyala, Corps of Military Police Records, Bangalore, and to quash the order dated 16.2.2004, and consequently to direct the respondents to grant disability pension to the petitioner with effect from, 24.7.1996. The other respondents in the writ petition are the Union of India (Group V), Allahabad and The Commandant, Corps of Military Police, Try Centre, Bangalore-25. From the assertion made in the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner was selected for the Post of Corps Army Military Police on 23.2.1996. While the petitioner was undergoing training, he was medically discharged on 24.7.1996 under medical category “EEE" for substandard vision. The Medical Board fixed the disability pension at 20%. However, the third respondent rejected the petitioner's claim of disability pension by letter, dated 19.11.1997. The petitioner had made a representation to the third respondent, but no reply was received. Thereafter, the petitioner also sent many representations to other respondents on various dates. Ultimately, by order dated 16.2.2004, his claim has been rejected by the third respondent. Again the petitioner filed two representations on 27.2.2004 and 12.4.2004 to the respondents which are yet to be deposed of. Copies of the representations dated 25.1.1998, 31.1