IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13997 of 2016 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ………………

Suprava Dash …. Petitioner -versus-

University of Madras & …. Opposite Parties Others For Petitioner : M/s. Mr. M.K. Mishra, Advocate.

For Opp. Parties : Mr. R.N. Acharya, Adv. for O.P.1.

PRESENT:

THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing:12.02.2025 and Date of Judgment:12.02.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Pursuant to the order dtd.10.02.2025, learned counsel for the Petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition against the University of Madras, contended that since Petitioner took the examination so conducted by the University of Madras at the center at Bhubaneswar as reflected in the Admit Card issued in her favour under Annexure-3-Series in Gourav College of Management & Science Plot No.1564/7828, Palasuni Satyavihar NH-5, Bhubaneswar, Orissa and Petitioner also deposited the required fees through a coordinator approved by the University of Madras namely Liberty Education, part cause of action arose in the State of Orissa and accordingly in view of the provisions contained under Article -226(2) of the Constitution of India, this Court has got jurisdiction to issue writ against the University of Madras.

4. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the following decisions:-

1. Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India &

Others (2014) 9 SCC-329, Para-9 & 16.

2. Om Prakash Srivastav vs. Union of India &

Another (2006) 6 SCC-207, Para-7 to 16.

3. Navichandra N Maijithia vs. State of Maharastra & Others (2000) 7 SCC 640, Para-

17,18, 27 & 37.

4. Rajendran Chingaravelu vs. R.K. Mishra Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax & Others (2010)

1 SCC 457, Para-9 & 11.

4.1. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma in Para-9 & 16 has held as follows:- “9. The interpretation given by this Court in the aforesaid decisions resulted in undue hardship and inconvenience to the citizens to invoke writ jurisdiction. As a result, clause (1-A) was inserted in Article 226 by the Constitution (Fifteenth) Amendment Act, 1963 and subsequently renumbered as clause (2) by the Constitution (Forty-second) Amendment Act, 1976. The amended clause (2) now reads as under:

“226.Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

(2) 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.

(3)-(4)***”

On a plain reading of the amended provisions in clause (2), it is clear that now the High Court can issue a writ when the person or the authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the court's territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, for all inten