The cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for a writ petition to be maintainable.

( 1 ) THIS Full Bench has been constituted by the order of Honble the Acting Chief Justice on a reference made by a learned Single Judge dated 12. 3. 2004 as the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there were contradictory Division Bench judgments of this Court by Division Bench decisions in Sarojmahanta (Mrs.), Li. Colonel v. Union of India, 2003 (3) ESC 1419, and in kailash Nath Tiwari v. Union of India, Special Appeal No. 997 of 1995, decided on 9. 1. 2002.

( 2 ) THE short question in this case is whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide this petition.

( 3 ) THE petitioner/accused was serving in the Indian Army, While on duty at Kanchanpara at calcutta in West Bengal, he was given a charge-sheet by Lt. Col. S. Ganguly of 1841 Light regiment in which the following charge was levelled against him under Section 64 (e) of the army Act:

"obtaining for himself a gratification as motive for procuring the enrolment of a person in that he, at Kanchanpara, on 3. 1. 1999, while working as a clerk in the branch recruiting office, kanchanpara obtained a sum of Rs. 14,500/- (rupees fourteen thousands and five hundred only)by demanding from Sri Babu Mandal son of Sri Niyta Gopal Mandal, a gratification as a motive for procuring enrolment of the said individual. "

( 4 ) TRUE copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner was also given a letter dated 4. 4. 1999 in which he was informed that he will have to face a Summary court Martial on 8. 4. 1999 by the Commanding Officer, 1841-Light Regiment vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner was thereafter tried by the Summary Court Martial and he was found guilty of the charges and awarded the following punishments :

(1) To be reduced to the ranks. (2) To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in civil jail, and (3) To be dismissed from the service.

( 5 ) TRUE copy of the verdict is Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

( 6 ) THE petitioner has challenged the Court Martial proceedings and the sentence dated 15. 4. 1999 annexure 3 to the writ petition on various grounds but in our opinion this petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the Allahabad High Court does not have jurisdiction in the case and only the Calcutta High Court or Delhi High Court has jurisdiction in this case.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has urged that in view of the Supreme Court decision in dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff, (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1275, a writ petition challenging the impugned sentence can be filed in any High Court in India as the Army Chief has been made a party (respondent No. 2) in this case.

( 8 ) HE has further urged that since the petitioner is a resident of District, Ballia the writ petition can be filed in the Allahabad High Court as Ballia is in U. P.

( 9 ) WE have carefully perused the decisions in Dinesh Chandra Gahtoris case (supra ). The entire judgment of the Supreme Court is as follows:

"by the Court-Leave granted. The notice on the special leave petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by an order setting aside the order under challenge and restoring the writ petition to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court at Allahabad to quash a communication sent to his wife which stated that the appellant had been tried by a Summary Court Martial and had been found guilty of using criminal force against his superior officer and awarded the sentence of dismissal from service. The High Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage by holding, "in view of the fact that the Summary Court martial proceedings were conducted in the State of Punjab and orders were also passed in Punjab by the West Command, we are of the view that this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. " the writ petition was filed in 1992. The impugned order was passed in 1999. This