Juridiction under article-226 of Consti

Dear Friends,

Well the issue of jurisdiction has been faced by us in the court lot number of times..my focus is on artice-226 of constitution well the article reads as under;

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. Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-
   1. furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
   2. giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
4. The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.

Well initially under Article-226 clause 2 was not there and therefore any writ could have been filed only on the ground as mentioned under clause-1 of the article-226 of constitution. prior position has been discussed and interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh Vs. UOI 1961 2 SCR 828.

Basically before 15th amendment of constitution the cause of action had no relevance only the seat of the respondent against which relief is sought was the basis for claiming any relief.. well vide clause 2 the scope was widened by incorporating "cause of action" also. now the scope is quite wide but the courts have literally forgotten the clause 1 and only focus on clause 2 of the article-226.

well not many of us know the objects & reasons behind the amendment, which reads as under;

“Under the existing Article 226 of the Constitution, the only High Court which has jurisdiction with respect to the Central Government is the Punjab High Court. This involves considerable hardship to litigants from distant places. It is, therefore, proposed to amend Article 226 so that when any relief is sought against any Government, authority or person for any action taken, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises may also have jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions, orders or writs.”

As evident the purpose was to reduce the hardship of the litigants as central govt. could have been sued before Punjab High Court as Delhi High Court was not there then, subsequently Delhi High Court was established.

well now my query is pertaining to service jurisprudence as there you can file a writ where you are posted... well what happened when an employee is posted by the respondent employee somewhere pursuance to exigency of service and therefore on account of some mishappening is thrown out after departmental proceedings...as the order would be passed where he was posted but since he is out of service he has no option to go back to home or somewhere else, now when he file writ enforcing his fundamental rights the respondent employee cannot take advantage of plea of lack of jurisdiction as respondent employer only posted him there and now since the employee is not getting any monetary benefits from employer is the form of pension or anything dont have the means to travel that far and enforce his rights... well the doctrine of forum non conveniens. has also to be seen and i say the govt. cannot take advantage of doctrine of forum non conveniens. as the govt. only posted me there and the govt. has his organs all over india so in case of violation of fundamental rights the concept of cause of action and doctrine of forum non conveniens. should not be looked into... ... well I need some help to throw light on the various aspects of the matter with support of case law… the relevant case law is attached for ready reference…