NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

In the instant appeal, the question for consideration before the Court was: whether the Patna High Court was correct in taking the view that it had no jurisdictlon to entertain the writ petition. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In order to overcome undue hardship and inconvenience to the citizens to invoke writ jurisdiction Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 was amended G in 1963 and further in 1976. On a plain reading of the amended provisions in Clause (2) of Art. 226, it is clear that 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 H wholly or partially arises within the High Court's territorial NAWAL KISl'-IORE SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA 1029 jurisdiction. Cause of action for t.he purpose of Art. 226 A (2) of the Constitution, for alJ intent and purpose must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged uls 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The _expression cause of action ha~ not been defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Constitution. Cause of action is bundle B of facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the suit before he can succeed. [ppras 10 & 11]' [1036-F-H; 1037-A] State of Rajasthan and Others.vs. Mis Swaika Properties C and Another, 1~85 (3) SCR 598; (1985) 3 SCC 217; Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. :Utpal Kumar Basu and others, 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 252 = (1994) 4 SCC 711; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and Another 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 841 = (2004) 6 SCC 254; Union of India and others vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and D another2001 (4 Suppl. SCR 631 = (2002) 1 SCC 567; Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India and Another 2007 (5) SCR 923 = (2006) 6 SCC 207; Rajendran Chingaravelu vs. R.K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Others 2009 (15) SCR 1113 = (2010) 1 SCC 457 - relied E on.