1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge his discharge from the Armed Forces on the ground that firstly he was wrongly retired, and secondly no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner before the discharge order was issued.

2. The details of the facts at this juncture are not necessary barring few facts. Undisputedly the discharge order was issued from Secundrabad and was ultimately served upon the petitioner who was serving at Pathankot. According to the petitioner, his wife had made a statutory complaint/appeal against unceremonious discharge of the petitioner and the petitioner also made a statutory appeal to the authorities, but his appeal has yet not been considered; while the appeal sent by his wife was rejected, and the order dismissing the appeal filed by wife was conveyed to him at Jabalpur. The petitioner says and submits that during his service tenure on two occasions he was posted at Jabalpur and when he was indisposed of, he was treated at Jabalpur, and as he is a permanent resident of Jabalpur, this Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition.

3. On the other hand, the respondents have submitted that no part of cause of action ever accrued in Madhya Pradesh. According to them, the order was issued from Secundrabad and was executed at Pathankot (Punjab); simple communication relating to the dismissal of the statutory appeal would not confer any jurisdiction on this Court because information relating to the decision on an appeal would not be an integral part of the cause of action. It is further submitted by them that residence of the petitioner would not clothe this Court with the jurisdiction so also the earlier postings of the petitioner or his treatments at Jabalpur would also not confer any jurisdiction on this Court.

4. I have heard the parties on the question of jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India reads as under :--

"The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or 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."

6. The words "cause of action" have been defined in Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure and approved by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties and another [(1985) Vol. 3 SCC 217]

The words mean "every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court." According to the Supreme Court "cause of action" is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. For conferring territorial jurisdiction upon a Court, the party approaching the Court must show that the cause of action wholly or in part arose within the territories of the said Court.

7. A bare perusal of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India would show that the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 226 to issue directions, etc. can 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 for conferral of the territorial jurisdiction a petitioner is duty bound to show to the Court that cause of action wholly or in part arose within the territories of the said Court.

8. Both the parties have placed their strong reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Ms Swaika Properties (AIR 1985 SC 1289). The facts in the nut-shell were that certain properties belonged to one M/s Swaika Properties which was a Calcutta base company; the said property situate at Rajasthan. Th