A High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain a petition unless an integral or material part of the cause of action, not merely an incidental one, arises within its territorial limits.

Judgment

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

1. Although the instant petition has come up on an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, yet during the course of arguments, a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction was raised on behalf of the respondents, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard on such preliminary objection.

2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with following prayers:

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the present petition

for writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be allowed and;

by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

(i) The order dated 20.03.2026 (Annx.12) may kindly be

quashed and the same may kindly be set aside.

(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to permit the

petitioner to discharge his duties at Zonal Office, Moga Zone.

(iii) Any other writ or direction that may be deemed fit, just and

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be

issued in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Costs may kindly be awarded.”

3. At the threshold, Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that since no part of cause of action has accrued in the territory of state of Rajasthan, therefore, this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present writ petition. It was submitted that the petitioner is presently posted and residing at Moga, Punjab, while the impugned suspension order dated 20.03.2026 has been passed by the competent authority, i.e., Deputy General Manager (HRD), at the Head Office situated in New Delhi, both of which lie outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

4. It was further argued that the petitioner has failed to plead or establish any integral or material facts constituting a part of the cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mere assertion of residence or incidental facts is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction unless such facts form an essential part of the cause of action.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is settled proposition of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction only when the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial limits and such facts must be specifically pleaded and demonstrated. In the present case, no such foundational facts have been disclosed in the writ petition. It was, therefore, contended that since the impugned order has been passed by an authority situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and no part of the cause of action has arisen within territorial limits of this Court, the writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

6. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon judgment dated 07.08.2023 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Divya Upchar Sansthan & Others vs. Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8526/2022) as well as recent judgment dated 26.02.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Surendra Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21768/2013).

7. Per contra, Mr. Madhav Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the preliminary objection regarding lack of te