Territorial Jurisdiction of High Courts in Writ matters

Thanks Manish for this valuable contribution.

In fact the amendemnt expanded the scope of jurisdiction. The clause based on place of residence of defendant remains as it is, and over and above that clause, clause of cause of action was introduced. The clause of cause of action never curtailed the ambit of earlier clause of jurisdiction.

Despite this the courts are not interested in hearing writ petition, very eager to dismiss the petition on flimsy ground of jurisdiction without understanding the constitutional provisions.

Thank you Manish, for the citation.

Yes, Rajeshsh, Judges should first marshalled the facts and see the legal points involved and the reasons for the decision before it dismissed the valuable rights of the aggrieved party in just one stroke.

Dear Rajesh Sir & Assumi Sir,

thakns for your appreciation. yes sr i agree that the sad amendment widenend the scope of the writ jurisdiction of the HC since earlier to that, the HC  wuld acutely refuse to entertatin any writ against any authroity if the head office of the same did not exist  in  that jurisdiction. the sam case was with the union govt as whenevr we had to file file a writ against the union govt we were bound to move the Delhi HC,(infact punjab and haryana HC as initially Delhi HC was not in existence) it was seriously an unconstitutional provision. 

the said  amended article has been renamed only under a subsequent amendment.  

concerning the cause of action, yes i do agree with your valuable opinions that judiciary must excercise its descretion with due care and not on its own whim. sometimes even high court they do not apply mind over any issue. this must be discouraged..

The other point which is not understood about Art 226 that it is not a "procedural provision", it is a substantive right. In fact Dr. Ambedkar was wrong in saying that Art. 32 is the heart of constitution, it is in fact Art 226.

Thus a petition under Art 226 should not be dismissed lightly, in limine, as it is denial of a substantive right of the petitioner.

sir, 

I was a sub-Inspector in CISF ( head office at Delhi). when i was posted at Mumbai i was served final order " removal from service" there. I submitted appeal to The DIG,  zonal Hq , Hyderabad and  as per rule i vacated govt. quarters and returned back to my native place patna bihar. I received reply of that appeal in negative by post at my native place patna . Then i again by post submitted revision petition to the IG, Sector Hq , Mumbai and received reply of that by post in negative at my native place patna. now i want to file writ petition at Patna high court. kindly guide can i file writ petition in patna considering territorial jurisdiction of high courts in writ matters. 

yes jurisdiction is there for bihar hc to summon to the mumbai, moreover now you are jobless - it will favour you.

normally the jurisdiction limited to the state but a court of india has the jurisdiction to summon  all over india.

i am not advocate; please check what other says.

Patna High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The final order has been received in Patna. Further, the effect of action has been felt in Patna. In view of these, part of cause of action has arisen in Patna, and Patna High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Thanks to all ,

Dear Manish Singh,

I request  for your opinion also in specially my case. 

I have sent you a PM.

Sir,

Can i notarize my drafted writ petition at Patna and send it by courier to my advocate in mumbai to file it in mumbai High court. Actually i want this to avoid journey there mere for filing writ petition in mumbai. 

you sign it and send it to your lawyer..he would get it notarised..

even you can get it notarised at patna and then send it..no harm in that