A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained if no part of the cause of action arises within the court's jurisdiction.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, and Reviewing Authority of the respondent – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [“HPCL”] dated 11.12.2023, 25.05.2024 and 28.01.2025 respectively. He also assails an order dated 06.03.2024, which withheld his gratuity.

2. On 08.10.2025, it was noted that a preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent in their counter affidavit, with regard to territorial jurisdiction. Paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, to which reference was made in the said order, reads as follows:

“3. Without prejudice to the above, the Disciplinary Authority's Order dated 11/12/2023 was passed in the State of Uttar Pradesh falling under the territorial jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. Similarly, the Appellate Authority's Order dated 25/05/2024 and Reviewing Authority's Order dated 28/01/2025 were passed from the Head Quarter Office of the Corporation situated at Mumbai, falling under the territorial jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. In fact, Petitioner was last working at Patna since the year 2021 and prior to the same he was in Mughalsarai, Uttar Pradesh. All these facts have been concealed by Petitioner. Therefore, as no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.”

3. No rejoinder has been filed. Mr. Durgesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, also accepts that the aforesaid factual averments are correct. However, Mr. Gupta submits that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner’s original appointment was in Delhi, and that HPCL is a public sector undertaking under the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, which has its office in New Delhi.

4. In my view, these averments are insufficient to attract the jurisdiction of this Court. The prayers in the writ petition are directed against orders dated 11.12.2023, 25.05.2024, 28.01.2025 and 06.03.2024, none of which was issued within the jurisdiction of this Court. Although order dated 11.12.2023 has been challenged in the writ petition, it has not been annexed thereto. A copy of the said order has been produced by learned counsel for the parties, and is taken on record. It is undisputed that order dated 11.12.2023 issued by the Disciplinary Authority was passed in Lucknow, and order dated 25.05.2024 issued by the Appellate Authority, as well as order dated 28.01.2025 issued by the Reviewing Authority, were both passed in Mumbai. The Registered Office of HPCL is also located in Mumbai.

5. The status of HPCL as a public sector undertaking under the Government of India also does not persuade me to a contrary conclusion. Such a proposition would vest this Court with authority over any action of any Central Public Sector Undertaking taken anywhere in the country.

6. The fact that the petitioner’s original appointment was in New Delhi does not make it appropriate for this Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner’s original appointment is not a part of the bundle of facts, which constitutes the cause of action in the present petition challenging his termination.

7. In any event, even if any part of the cause of action has arisen in New Delhi by reason of the petitioner’s original appointment, that is an insignificant part of the cause of action, and it would still be inappropriate to entertain this writ petition in this Court, on the doctrine of forum non conveni