Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The amendments under Article 226(2) have expanded the scope, but the core principle remains that jurisdiction is primarily territorial and cannot be assumed solely based on the location of the appellate or original authority if the cause of action does not arise there ["Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd. formerly known as Volvo Buses India Pvt Ltd. VS Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue - Bombay"] ["Nbcc (India) Limited VS Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam - Delhi"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd. formerly known as Volvo Buses India Pvt Ltd. VS Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue - Bombay"]- ["Nbcc (India) Limited VS Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam - Delhi"]- ["Amit Hiteshbhai Pandya VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"]- ["SRI G KARIAPPA vs DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS INDIA - Karnataka"]- ["UETA INC & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Delhi"]- ["Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited VS Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (CERC) Rep. by its Chairman - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["State Bank of India VS Anandilal Dabkara - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Ikb AUTOMOTIVE SEATING AND SYSTEM LTD VS UNION OF INDIA - Calcutta"]- ["J. M. Chandrika Priyadharshani vs Ammasi Krishna - Supreme Court"]- ["FIMBANK PLC vs PEMILIK DAN/ATAU PENCARTER DEMIS KAPAL ATAU VESEL NIKA KINI DIKENALI SEBAGAI BAO L.... - Federal Court Putrajaya"]- ["Shivika Upadhayay VS Pushpendra Trivedi - Allahabad"]- ["ST. JOHN S TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN, VEERAVANALLUR, AMBASAMUDRAM TALUK, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU VS UNION OF INDIA - Karnataka"]- ["ASHOK KUMAR PRAJAPAT vs UNION OF INDIA and ORS - Rajasthan"]- ["INDIAN CHARGE CHROME VS UNION OF INDIA - Delhi"]- ["Bharat Kumar Ghosh VS Union of India - Tripura"]- ["Bharat Kumar Ghosh v. Union of India and Others - Gauhati"]- ["Ex-Rect (MP) A. Madurai Veeran No. 7779447/K VS Union of India, represented by its Secretary to Government & Others - Madras"]- ["ST. JOHN S TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN, VEERAVANALLUR, AMBASAMUDRAM TALUK, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU VS UNION OF INDIA - Karnataka"]
In the realm of constitutional remedies in India, writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution serve as a powerful tool for enforcing fundamental rights and challenging administrative actions. However, a critical question often arises: Writ Court having no Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Issue Writs—but is this absolute? Understanding the territorial boundaries of High Courts' writ powers is essential for litigants, lawyers, and businesses to avoid jurisdictional pitfalls and wasted efforts.
This blog post delves into the legal principles governing High Courts' jurisdiction to issue writs, highlights key exceptions, and draws from judicial precedents. While this provides general insights, it is not legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your specific case.
High Courts in India typically exercise writ jurisdiction only within their territorial limits, meaning throughout the state where they are located. Their writs do not extend beyond these boundaries unless specific exceptions apply. Nawal Kishore Sharma VS Union of India - Supreme Court (2014)Khajoor Singh: S. S. Lathar VS Union Of India - Supreme Court (1960)Zee Telefilms LTD. VS Union Of India - Supreme Court (2005)Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd. VS Assistant Collector (Principal Appraiser) Customs - Rajasthan (1978)
The foundational principle is clear: High Courts in India have jurisdiction to issue writs only within their territorial limits, i.e., throughout the state in which they are located. Nawal Kishore Sharma VS Union of India - Supreme Court (2014) This ensures that writs primarily regulate authorities, tribunals, and rights infringements within that jurisdiction. Nawal Kishore Sharma VS Union of India - Supreme Court (2014)Khajoor Singh: S. S. Lathar VS Union Of India - Supreme Court (1960)
As judicial interpretations emphasize, The phrase 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises its jurisdiction' indicates that the High Court's writs are effective only within its territorial jurisdiction, not beyond. Nawal Kishore Sharma VS Union of India - Supreme Court (2014)Khajoor Singh: S. S. Lathar VS Union Of India - Supreme Court (1960)
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto for enforcing rights. However, this power is territorially confined. The primary aim is to oversee subordinate courts, authorities, and tribunals within the High Court's jurisdiction and protect citizens' rights in those areas. Nawal Kishore Sharma VS Union of India - Supreme Court (2014)Khajoor Singh: S. S. Lathar VS Union Of India - Supreme Court (1960)
Courts have consistently ruled that without territorial jurisdiction, a writ court cannot intervene, even against central authorities like Parliament or statutory bodies located elsewhere. J. K. Industries Ltd. VS Union of India - Rajasthan (2005)Mohan Singh VS Union of India - Rajasthan (2000)
A significant carve-out came via the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, now codified in Article 226(2). This allows a High Court to issue writs to persons or authorities outside its territorial jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its limits. Tripti Vyas VS M/s. Ahlers India Pvt. Ltd. - Rajasthan (2006)
The 'cause of action' mirrors Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code—a bundle of essential facts proving the claim. Tripti Vyas VS M/s. Ahlers India Pvt. Ltd. - Rajasthan (2006) For instance:- If part of the dispute (e.g., notice issuance or event triggering rights violation) occurs within the High Court's territory, jurisdiction may extend.- Absent this, no writs can be issued beyond borders. Tripti Vyas VS M/s. Ahlers India Pvt. Ltd. - Rajasthan (2006)J. K. Industries Ltd. VS Union of India - Rajasthan (2005)
This exception balances accessibility to justice while respecting federal structure.
Indian courts have applied these principles rigorously in diverse cases, dismissing petitions lacking territorial jurisdiction.
In a cheque dishonour dispute under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Madras High Court refused to quash proceedings before a Mumbai Magistrate. The court held: a High Court exercising power under Articles 226 and 227, cannot entertain a writ petition to quash any proceeding instituted outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.M. Palanichamy VS Union of India Rep. by Secretary to Government, Law Department, New Delhi - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 3336
Key facts:- Cheque issued in Chennai but presented and dishonoured in Mumbai.- Complaint filed in Mumbai; petitioner sought quashing in Chennai.- Ruling: This Court has no territorial jurisdiction over the Courts at Mumbai... The proceedings instituted within the jurisdiction of one High Court cannot be stayed by another High Court. M. Palanichamy VS Union of India Rep. by Secretary to Government, Law Department, New Delhi - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 3336
The cause of action (dishonour in Mumbai) conferred jurisdiction there, not Chennai, despite contractual clauses favoring Chennai courts. Consent in contracts cannot oust statutory criminal jurisdiction. M. Palanichamy VS Union of India Rep. by Secretary to Government, Law Department, New Delhi - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 3336
In labor matters, the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ seeking to declare strike notices illegal against a Kochi-based union outside its jurisdiction (excluding other respondents). Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , rep by its Chief Manager-HRS, P. K. Mallick VS Petroleum Employees Union, rep by its General Secretary Guruswamy Buildings - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 3415 It noted: this court has no territorial jurisdiction to issue any writ against entities beyond its reach under Article 226(2). Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , rep by its Chief Manager-HRS, P. K. Mallick VS Petroleum Employees Union, rep by its General Secretary Guruswamy Buildings - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 3415
Contrastingly, another case upheld jurisdiction where territorial objection was rejected, but emphasized actions must pass tests of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. Rashtriya Colliery Majdoor Congress VS South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. - 2010 Supreme(MP) 815
Challenging a recovery certificate, the Delhi High Court dismissed petitions due to a loan agreement stipulating Lucknow courts' exclusive jurisdiction. It stated: Where, therefore, several of the respondents against whom writs are sought to be issued are residing outside the territorial limits of the High Court, it has no jurisdiction to issue writs against them.A. K. Surekha VS Pradeshiya Investment Corpn. of U. P. Ltd.A. K. SUREKHA VS PRADESHIYA INVESTMENT CORPN OF UP LIMITED - 2003 Supreme(Del) 511
The court criticized delaying tactics by companies, underscoring: a person or an authority against which a writ under Article 226 is sought to be directed must be within the territories as a condition of the High Court being empowered to issue such a writ.A. K. Surekha VS Pradeshiya Investment Corpn. of U. P. Ltd.A. K. SUREKHA VS PRADESHIYA INVESTMENT CORPN OF UP LIMITED - 2003 Supreme(Del) 511
For petitioners:- Verify cause of action: Does any part (e.g., notice, event, residence of authority) fall within the High Court's territory?- Choose the right forum: File in the High Court overseeing the subordinate court or primary cause.- Avoid forum shopping: Contractual clauses may not override statutory jurisdiction, especially in criminal or public law matters.
Litigants challenging acts outside their state risk dismissal, costs, and delays. Courts view repeated jurisdictional challenges skeptically, as in industrial strike cases. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , rep by its Chief Manager-HRS, P. K. Mallick VS Petroleum Employees Union, rep by its General Secretary Guruswamy Buildings - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 3415
Businesses in multi-state operations (e.g., cheques, loans, labor) should map causes of action early.
A High Court lacking territorial jurisdiction cannot issue writs against external persons or authorities unless the cause of action ties back to its territory, as affirmed by amendments and precedents. Tripti Vyas VS M/s. Ahlers India Pvt. Ltd. - Rajasthan (2006)Nawal Kishore Sharma VS Union of India - Supreme Court (2014)Khajoor Singh: S. S. Lathar VS Union Of India - Supreme Court (1960) This framework upholds judicial federalism while enabling justice.
Stay informed on evolving interpretations—recent cases continue refining 'cause of action' in digital and cross-border contexts. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
#WritJurisdiction, #Article226, #HighCourtIndia
Therefore, if the Appellate Authority is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, it would not be open to issue a writ to the original authority which is within its jurisdiction so long as it cannot issue a writ to the Appellate Authority. ... Therefore, if the appellate authority is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court it would not be open to it to....
The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs to any person or authority within its territorial jurisdiction thus flows from Article 226(1) of the Constitution. ... Power of High Courts to issue certain writs. ... (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 jurisd....
The plain reading of the provisions under Article 226(1) of the Constitution would suggest that the High Court shall have the power to issue prerogative writs to any person, authority or the government within its territorial jurisdiction. ... In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that this Court cannot have jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition to the Court of t....
territorial jurisdiction. ... It is stated that the question of territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be arrived at on the basis of averments made in the petition. ... the territories in relation to which it exercise 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 corpu....
Thus, this submission is also irrelevant so as to determine the issue relating to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the instant writ petition is concerned. 32. ... Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers power on every High Court to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo-warranto and Certiorari, throughout the territory in relation to w....
whose territorial jurisdiction extends only throughout the territories of the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot exercise writ jurisdiction over the impugned order passed beyond its territorial jurisdiction. ... Inter alia it was contended by the respondents that the High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ petition. ... As such this writ petition is not maintaina....
of this Court would not confer any territorial jurisdiction on this Court to entertain the writ petition. ... Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that even after applying the principle of forum conveniens, this Court cannot hold that it has no territorial jurisdiction and cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. ... Power of High Courts to #HL_ST....
So the ratio of the Supreme Court relating to estoppel on the part of the defendant to question on the territorial jurisdiction of this Court cannot be applied here. ... In other words, under Article 226 (2) of the constitution, every High Court is empowered to issue writs or orders to authorities, government or persons whose residence or seat is not included within the territories of the said High Court. ... the jurisdict....
Accordingly, unlike the writ jurisdiction vested in the Court of Appeal, the writ jurisdiction conferred in the High Court to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, procedendo, mandamus and quo warranto pursuant to Article 154P(4)(b) is restricted in two ways. ... The revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court has only a territorial limitation. The writ jurisdiction#H....
territorial waters. ... Since an admiralty writ in rem can only be served on the defendant vessel within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, it necessarily follows that the Court ought to allow the writ to be renewed for as long as the defendant vessel does not enter the ... Substituted service of the writ is not permitted. (iii) The writ also cannot be served out of the jurisdiction. This ....
If the court of the Learned 62nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, Mumbai, has taken cognizance of the criminal complaint without any jurisdiction, it is only for the Bombay High Court to interfere. Power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised only if the subordinate court which exercises the jurisdiction or takes cognizance of a case falls within the jurisdiction of that High Court. But the Bombay High Court vide order dated 08.02.2010 in Crl.W.P.No.409 of 2010 has directed the petitioner to raise the plea of jurisdiction, which has also been rejected by the by the Le....
The writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on this ground. Therefore as against them, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to issue any writ. If respondents 1 and 2 are excluded from the writ petition, then the real relief is only against the third respondent which is admittedly a trade union functioning in the State of Kerala having its headquarters at Kochi. It is not clear as to why the petitioner should rope in third respondent when they are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this court conferred under Article 226(2) of the Constitution.
On the other hand Shri P.S. Nair, learned senior counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 3 while countering the submissions made on behalf of the Appellants submitted that impugned communication neither creates any right nor does it take away any right. In support of aforesaid proposition learned senior counsel placed reliance on decisions of Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors.: (1994) 4 SCC 711 and Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors. v. Kalyan Banerjee,: (2008) 3 SCC 456. It was further contended that check-off system cannot be claimed as a matter of right.....
Where, therefore, several of the respondents against whom writs are sought to be issued are residing outside the territorial limits of the High Court, it has no jurisdiction to issue writs against them. 21. A Division Bench of Hyderabad High Court in C. Shrikishen v. State of Hyderabad & Ors., AIR 1956 Hyderabad 186, observed that a person or an authority against which a writ under Article 226 is sought to be directed must be within the territories as a condition of the High Court being empowered to issue such a writ.
Hyd 186 observed that a person or an authority against which a writ under Article 226 is sought to be directed must be within the territories as a condition of the High Court being empowered to issue such a writ. Where, therefore, several of the respondents against whom writs are sought to be issued are residing outside the territorial limits of the High Court, it has no jurisdiction to issue writs against them.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
