( 1 ) THIS Special Appeal arises out of the order passed by learned Single Judge whereby he declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on The ground that this court has territorial jurisdiction in respect of an order passed by respondent No. 1 on a representation being made by the appellant Under Section 164 of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the appellant was charged of murder of Sipoy Driver Parvin kumar Under Section 69 of the Army Act read with 302 of Indian Penal Code by a General court Martial. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and was dismissed from service. The proceedings of the Genera) Court Martial were confirmed by the confirming authority and the appellant was sent to civil Jail at Katuwa, Tehsil Hira Nagar, Jammu from where he was subsequently transferred to Central Jail Naini, Allahabad on compassionate ground on the representation made by his wife.

( 3 ) THE appellant, after the order of sentence having been confirmed made a representation Under section 164 (2) of the Army Act to respondent No. 2. It was rejected by him on 10-6-1984. This order was communicated to the appellant at Allahabad where he was serving his sentence in jail.

( 4 ) A preliminary objection was raised at the time of hearing of the writ petition that as the Court martial proceedings were taken at Jammu where he was sentenced and convicted for the offence and later on his representation being filed before respondent No. 2, at Delhi was rejected at delhi, this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in respect of orders passed by general Court Martial at Jammu and the order passed by respondent No. 2 at Delhi. The objection of the respondents was accepted and the writ petition was dismissed.

( 5 ) WE have heard Sri G. D. Mukerji, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sushil Harkauli learned counsel for the respondents.

( 6 ) THE main thrust of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant is that as the order passed by respondent No. 2 was served at Allahabad, a part of cause of action arose at Allahabad and this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed in this Court. Prior to insertion of Clause (1 -b) in Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, the view was that writ could be issued by the High Court only to the person authority or government residing or located within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. In the year 1963 by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendmend) Act Clause (1 -A) was introduced in Article 226 and additional basis of jurisdiction was confirmed viz, the place where cause of action wholly or in part arises. This provision is similar to Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil procedure. The legal position was explained in the decision in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711. The Supreme Court reiterated that expression "cause of action" means the bundle of facts if traversed it would be necessary for the petitioner to prove in order to support his right to judgment in his favour.

( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the order imposing punishment on a delinquent is not effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer concerned. In State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika, air 1966 SC 1313, it was held that mere passing of an order of dismissal by an appropriate authority and kept on its file does not take effect unless it is communicated to the officer concerned or is otherwise published. On this view, it has been held in various decisions of this court and of other High Courts that the cause of action arises at the place where the order of dismissal from service or other penalties imposed on a servant is served. In State of Madhya pradesh and Ors. v. Bhaskar Datt Misra and Ors. , 1986 UPLBEC 252 where the officer was serving at Madhya Pradesh but was served with the order of terminatio