( 1 ) IN the instant case, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties prefaced his submission with a preliminary objection about lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court and it is in this perspective that we are called upon to dispose of the preliminary objection as a prologue to delving into the submissions on merits of the writ petition. Accordingly, the hearing in the matter was circumscribed to the moot question about territorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) A synoptical resumption of the relevant facts necessary to appreciate the moot question raised across the bar, may be set out and they are that the Divisional Manager, Central Railways with its Head Office stationed at Jabalpur invited applications from respectable and experienced caterers vide advertisement dated 10-11-1996 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) for grant of catering contract in respect of Manikpur Railway Station, that the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 were amongst the applicants for grant of Theka appertaining to Manikpur Railway Station for which interview was held on 24-2-1997 at Jabalpur and in the ultimate analysis, the decision tilted in favour of respondent No. 3, who was awarded Theka vide separate orders dated 14-5-1997, for running Tea, Coffee, Namkeen, Sweet and Fruit stalls as well as refreshment rooms -- Veg. and non-veg; that the Theka aforestated, as mentioned in the order, is to ensure for a period of five years between 20-5-97 and 19-5-2002; and that it is these contracts awarded by two separate orders dated 14-5-1997, which are sought to be quashed by means of the present petition basically on ground that the opposite party No. 3 does not satisfy the experience criterion. The two contracts were awarded each on yearly licence fee fixed at Rs. 50,000. 00 and Rs. 18,000. 00 respectively, subject to the conditions enumerated in the orders (Annexures 9 and 10 ).

( 3 ) IT brooks no dispute that the decision to award Theka in favour of third respondent was arrived at Jabalpur, which place lies beyond the territorial bounds of this Court. It was urged by the Counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the "cause of action" for filing the writ petition stemmed within the territorial jurisdiction of Madhya Pradesh High Court and by this reckoning, Allahabad High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in opposition, canvassed that part of cause of action arose at Manikpur Railway Station, the situs of the contract -- which is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Sri V. B. Singh, appearing for the petitioner urged that the situs of contract constitutes an integral part of cause of action in a writ petition like the one in hand.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to Art. 226 of the Constitution as it originally stood, the High Courts had jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs, orders or directions for enforcement of fundamental rights or any other purpose to any person or authority or in a given case to any Government,whether Union or State, resident in or located in the territory in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. The concept of cause of action was completely alien to Art. 226 and it was so held by the Supreme Court in Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Subbarao, reported in AIR 1953 SC 210, K. S. Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Investigating Commission etc. AIR 1954 SC 207: Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532; and the Collector Custom v. East India Commr. Company, AIR 1963 SC 1124. The view that the jurisdiction of the High Court to intervene under Art. 226 depends not upon whether the Headquarters or the Capital of the Government is situate but upon the fact of the effect of the act done by the Government, whether Union or State, being within the territorial limits of the Court, taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Maqbulunissa v. Union of India, A