Territorial jurisdiction for entertaining a writ petition is determined by the cause of action, which must have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

1. This Special Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 6 March 2018 of a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ-A No.7243 of 2018 filed by the appellant for quashing the communication dated 29 July 2017 sent by the Subsidiary Training Centre, Border Security Force, Bangalore (STC BSF Bangalore) to FHQ, BSF, AdmDte (GR Cell), HQ, DG BSF, New Delhi rejecting the plea for granting compassionate allowance, has been dismissed.

2. It transpires that the appellant was enrolled in the Border Security Force and while posted at STC, BSF, Bangalore he was sent to attend a Familiarization Cadre on Optical Instruments conducted in Gwalior from 9 September 1996 to 21 September 1996. He was sanctioned 15 days leave but he did not return within the stipulated time. A show cause notice dated 17 April 1996 was, accordingly, thereafter issued to the appellant by the officer at Bangalore and ultimately his services were terminated by order dated 26 November 1997. The petitioner represented to the Director General for reinstating him which was also rejected by order dated 23 February 1999. The appellant filed a writ petition in 2009 to challenge the order. This petition was dismissed on the ground of laches and the Special Appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed. Thereafter the appellant submitted an application dated 13 February 2017 before the STC BSF, Bangalore for grant of compassionate allowance. The FHQ, BSF at New Delhi sent a communication dated 23 February 2017 to the STC, BSF at Bangalore to examine his claim and it was also stated in the above letter that if STC BSF, Bangalore is not agreeable to the aforesaid suggestion, the case of the appellant for granting compassionate allowance be forwarded to the FHQ, BSF at New Delhi through proper channel. The Inspector General, STC, BSF at Bangalore has by communication dated 29 July 2017 rejected the claim of the appellant for grant of compassionate allowance and has informed the FHQ, BSF at New Delhi about this fact. It is this communication sent by the Inspector General, STC, BSF, Bangalore to the FHQ, BSF, New Delhi that was impugned in the writ petition out of which the Special Appeal arises. The learned Judge dismissed the petition for the reason that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the appellant is now residing at Ballia, he had made a claim for grant of compassionate allowance as part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the writ petition should not have been dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and in support of this submission, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2014) AIR SC 3607.

4. Sri Purnendu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has, however, contended that the learned Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction since neither cause of action nor part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

5. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is not in dispute that the services of the appellant were terminated by an order passed by STC, BSF at Bangalore. It is also not in dispute that the communication that was impugned in the writ petition was sent by the Inspector General, STC, BSF, Bangalore to FHQ, BSF, New Delhi pursuant to the communication dated 23 February 2017 sent by the FHQ, BSF, New Delhi to STC, BSF, Bangalore. In such circumstances merely because the appellant claims to be residing in the State of Uttar Pradesh, he cannot be permitted to contend that even part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

7. In Nawal Kishore Sharma the impugned communication was sent to the petitioner at Gaya in