Judgment N.P.SINGH and S.H.S.ABIDI JJ. 1. This writ application filed on behalf of a detenu under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) has been resisted by the State of Bihar on the ground that this application cannot be heard by a Bench at Patna in view of the High Court at Patna (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Ranchi) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as Ranchi Bench Act). The petitioner was taken in custody in the district of Dhanbad after an order of detention dated 25-11-1983 was passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner. Later, the State Government approved the aforesaid order of detention, by its order dated 5-12-1983 in exercise of the powers conferred on it by sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act. After receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the State Government confirmed the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, as required by the Section 12 of the Act. 2. Section 2 of the Ranchi Bench Act is as follows : "There shall be established a permanent bench of the High Court of Patna at Ranchi, and such Judges of the High Court at Patna, being not less than three in number, as the Chief Justice of that High Court may, from time to time, nominate, shall sit at Ranchi in order to exercise the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the districts of Hazaribagh, Giridih, Dhanbad, Ranchi, Palamau and Singh- bhum." "Provided that the Chief Justice of that High Court may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such district shall be heard at Patna." After the establishment of Permanent Bench at Ranchi, new rules were framed by the Patna High Court in respect of filing and hearing of cases relating to the districts within the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Bench (C. S. No. 11 dated 25-3-1976). Rule No. 3 which is relevant, is as follows : "All cases arising in the districts of Hazaribagh, Giridih, Dhanbad, Ranchi, Palamau and Singhbhum will be filed and heard at Ranchi: Provided that the Chief Justice of the High Court may in his discretion, order that any case arising in such district shall be heard at Patna." In view of the aforesaid Section 2 of the Ranchi Bench Act and Rule 3 of the Rules of the Patna High Court, after establishment of a Parliament Bench at Ranchi, that Bench has to exercise the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the Patna High Court "in respect of cases arising in the districts of Hazaribagh, Giridin, Dhanbad, Ranchi, Palamau and Singhbhum." 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a resident of Dhanbad, order of detention was passed at Dhanbad and the petitioner has been taken in custody within the district of Dhanbad. As such, there should not be any difficulty in holding that the case regarding the detention of the petitioner has arisen in the district of Dhanbad which is within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench at Ranchi, and normally this case should have been heard at Ranchi. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, however, it was urged that although the case has arisen at Dhanbad, but a part of the cause of action has takn place at Patna, and as such, it is open to the petitioner to file the present writ application either before a Bench at Ranchi or at Patna, in view of Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution. Clause (2) of Article 226 is as follows : "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." This Clause (2) of Article 226 was introduced by amendment to remove an anomaly where part of the cause of action used to arise within the jurisdiction of one High Court and other part within the jurisdiction of another High Court. In view of this Clause (2), in that situation, a person aggrieved can invoke the jurisdiction of any of the two High Courts, if the cause of action in part arises within the jurisdiction of that High Court. On a plain reading, this clause has application, where question arises about cause of action arising in part within the jurisdiction of two High Courts and not where cause of action has arisen in Part within the Jurisdiction of two Permanent Benches of the same High Court. As such, it has been urged by the learned Additional Advocate General that Clause (2) of Article 226 shall have no application when the question to be considered is as to whether a case is to be heard by a Bench at Patna or at Ranchi. 5. A similar question had arisen in connection with the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Permanent Bench at Lucknow of Allahabad High Court in the case of Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331 . The United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Amalgamation Order) was promulgated under Section 229 of the Government of India Act, 1935. That Order came into effect on 26th July, 1948. Paragraph 14 of the Amalgamation Order was a follows : "14. The United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Amalgamation Order) was promulgated under Section 229 of the Government of India Act, 1935. That Order came into effect on 26th July, 1948. Paragraph 14 of the Amalgamation Order was a follows : "14. The new High Court, and the judges and division courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint : Provided that unless the Governor of the United Provinces with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, otherwise directs, such judges of the new High Court, not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice, may from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Court : Provided further that the Chief Justice may in his discretion order that any case or class of cases arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad." In view of paragraph 14 aforesaid of the Amalgamation Order the Bench at Lucknow was to exercise the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct." A full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that in view of expression "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" legal proceedings, including civil cases, criminal cases, petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution etc. having their origin is such areas in Oudh, have to be heard by the Judges sitting at Lucknow. According to the Full Bench, the expression "arising in such areas in Oudh" refers to the places where the cases originate and not to the place of sitting of the last court ,or authority whose decree or order was being challanged in the proceeding before the High Court. In other words, the decision of the Full Bench had upheld the contention which is raised in the present writ application on behalf of the State. However, the Supreme Court negatived the said finding and observed as follows : "The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court is incorrect. In other words, the decision of the Full Bench had upheld the contention which is raised in the present writ application on behalf of the State. However, the Supreme Court negatived the said finding and observed as follows : "The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court is incorrect. It is unsound because the expression cause of action in an application under Article 226 would be as the expression is understood and if the cause of action arose because of the appellate order to the revisional order which came to be passed at Lucknow then Lucknow would have jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the areas in Oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of the persons applying for a writ. In such case an adverse appellate order might be the cause of action. The expression cause of action is well known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises wholly within the specified Oudh areas, it is undisputable that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter. If the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas in Oudh it would be open to the litigant who is the dominus lit is to have his forum conveniens. The litigant has the right to go to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. In such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular Court. The choice is by reason of the jurisdiction of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. The litigant has the right to go to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. In such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular Court. The choice is by reason of the jurisdiction of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. Similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen partly within specified areas in Oudh and partly out side the specified Oudh areas,, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings either at Allahabad or Lucknow, The court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Court is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action." It was also pointed out by the Supreme Court that whether an application under Article 226 is maintainable before the Lucknow or Allahabad Bench has to be decided on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner in respect of the whole of the cause of action or part of the cause of action having arisen at Lucknow within the specified areas in Oudh or part of the cause of action having arisen at a place outside the specified Oudh areas. It appears that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case while interpreting the expressions "cases arising in such areas" also took into consideration Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution. The constitutional provision having an overriding effect, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that application under Article 226 shall lie either at Lucknow or at Allahabad on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioners of such applications in respect of the cause of action having arisen in part within the jurisdiction of the Bench in question. 6 The position of Ranchi is in no way different. Once it is held that even while deciding the jurisdiction between the two Benches of the same High Court Clause (2) of Article 226 is applicable, a litigant cannot be compelled to file an application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Ranchi Bench on the ground that the case originated in one of the districts mentioned in Section 2 of the Ranchi Bench Act, if the later orders, which are under challenge, have been passed by the authorities in the districts outside the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Bench. On behalf of the petitioner it has been rightly pointed out that can (Sic) a writ application filed for quashing an order passed by the State Appellate Tribunal at Patna setting aside an order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Chotanagpur cannot be held to be non-maintainable at Patna because the case has originated in one of the districts within the jurisdiction of Ranchi Bench. Similarly, although the original order might have been passed by the Collector of one of the districts mentioned in Section 2 of the Ranchi Bench Act, but if the last order has been passed by Member, Board of Revenue, at Patna, a writ application against that order can be entertained by Patna Bench. 7. Coming to the facts of the present case, the order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act. In view of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, the District Magistrate had to forthwith report the fact to the State Government, sub-section (4) of ec tion 3 says "no such order shall remain in force for more than 12 days after the making thereof unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government". Petitioners detention is continued because of the approval given by the State Government at Patna within the period prescribed in sub-section (4) of Section 3 aforesaid. Apart from that the State Government at Patna has confirmed the detention order under Section 12 of the Act after receipt of the opinion from the Advisory Board. For continution of the detention of the person concerned it is a necessary step, which has been taken at Patna. As such, there is no escape from the conclusion that part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Ranchi Bench and part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bench at Patna, and, as such, it is open to the petitioner to file the writ application either at Ranchi or at Patna. 8. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State is rejected.