Judgment :- Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the entire proceedings of the District Court Martial and the sentence passed against him. A writ of mandamus is also prayed to direct the respondents to reinstate him with immediate effect. 2, Petitioner joined the Military service on 2-2-1979. He was serving in the Army Medical Corps as Naik. While he was working in 172 Military Hospital a District Court Martial was ordered against him on the allegation that he committed offence under S.69 of the Army Act. He is alleged to have used criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The Court found him guilty of the offence and as punishment he was reduced to the ranks. -Rigorous imprisonment for 18 months was also imposed against him. He was also dismissed from service. 3. Respondents challenge the very maintainability of the Original Petition before this Court. Contention of the respondents is that the writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as the cause of action has not arisen either wholly or in part within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Contention of the petitioner is that after the punishment imposed against him by the Court Martial he has been undergoing imprisonment in the central jail, Trivandrum and therefore the writ jurisdiction of this Court can very well be exercised, in his favour by this Court. 4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable before this court. 5. Clause (2) of Art.226 was inserted by the Constitution 15th Amendment Act, 1963. It was originally inserted as Clause 1-A and has been subsequently renumbered as Clause (2) by the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. The position prior to the insertion of Clause 1-A was that the High Court could not issue writs beyond its territorial jurisdiction. Thus, prior to the insertion of Clause 1-A High Court of a State was not in a position to issue writ or order under Art.226 unless the person, authority or Government against whom the writ is sought was physically resident or located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Thus, prior to the insertion of Clause 1-A High Court of a State was not in a position to issue writ or order under Art.226 unless the person, authority or Government against whom the writ is sought was physically resident or located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Pursuant to the insertion of Clause 1-A (now renumbered as Clause (2)), High Court is vested with power to issue writ against a person or authority within the jurisdiction of another High Court, if the cause of action arose wholly or in part within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court. Whenever cause of action arose wholly or in part within the jurisdiction of the High Court its power to issue writs under Art.226 can no longer be in dispute. Only in a case where it is established that the cause of action arose at least partly within the jurisdiction of the High Court it can be held that that Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 6. Admittedly charge was framed against the petitioner while he was in Military service at Gurdaspur. Ext. P1 proceedings of the District Court Martial unfolds the fact that the trial was conducted at Gurdaspur. Petitioner was found guilty and punishment was imposed at the place where the Court Martial was held. As the entire Court Martial proceedings were conducted at a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as he was convicted and sentenced at the place where the Court Martial proceedings were conducted and as Ext. P-1 proceedings were served on him while he was at Gurdaspur, it is not possible to hold that cause of action arose at least partly within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. That being the position, this court cannot invoke its jurisdiction under Art.226 to grant the reliefs prayed for in the Original Petition. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that after conviction and sentence petitioner on his own request has been moved to the central Prison, Trivandrum and merely because he is undergoing sentence in the central Prison this Court has no jurisdiction to quash the proceedings which led to petitioner's incarceration and subsequent transfer to central Prison, Trivandrum. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that after conviction and sentence petitioner on his own request has been moved to the central Prison, Trivandrum and merely because he is undergoing sentence in the central Prison this Court has no jurisdiction to quash the proceedings which led to petitioner's incarceration and subsequent transfer to central Prison, Trivandrum. 8. In State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Swaika Properties and another ( A.I.R 1985 SC 1289) Supreme Court had occasion to consider whether service of notice would amount to cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. In that case the respondent-Company has its registered office in Calcutta and owns certain land on the outskirts of Jaipur city. The Special Officer, Town Planning, Jaipur issued a notice under S.52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 regarding acquisition of that land for the purpose of a development scheme. Notice was duly served on the company at its registered office at Calcutta. Respondents in that case filed a writ petition under Art.226 in the Calcutta High Court challenging the notification. An exparte prohibitory order was passed by the Calcutta High Court restraining the State of Rajasthan and the concerned authorities from taking any steps under S.52(5) or (6) of the Act. The question that was considered by the Supreme Court was whether the service of notice under S.52(2) at the registered office of the company was an integral part of the cause of action and was sufficient to invest the Calcutta High Court with the jurisdiction to entertain the petition challenging the impugned notification of the State of Rajasthan. The Supreme Court held that the rule nisi and the ad interim exparte prohibitory order issued by the Calcutta High Court under Art.226 has to be set aside and the proceedings before the High Court has to be quashed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the statement filed by the Additional central Government Standing Counsel that the petitioner's appeal was rejected contended that as the rejection of the appeal can only be informed to the petitioner through the Superintendent, central Prison, Trivandrum this Court gets jurisdiction to grant reliefs sought for in the Original Petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the statement filed by the Additional central Government Standing Counsel that the petitioner's appeal was rejected contended that as the rejection of the appeal can only be informed to the petitioner through the Superintendent, central Prison, Trivandrum this Court gets jurisdiction to grant reliefs sought for in the Original Petition. As held in State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Swaika Properties and another (A.I.R 1985 SC 1289), mere service of notice cannot give rise to a cause of action unless the service of such notice is an integral part of the cause of action. Admittedly the appeal was rejected by the authority located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, merely because intimation of the rejection of the appeal would be forwarded to the petitioner who is serving sentence in central Prison, Trivandrum this Court cannot exercise its powers under Art.226 of the Constitution. That apart, in the Original Petition the challenge is only against the conviction and sentence of the District Court Martial. In the case in hand, cause of action has not arisen even partly within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Possibility of petitioner being served with an intimation of the rejection of his appeal in the central Prison, Trivandrum where he is undergoing imprisonment cannot be considered as cause of action arising partly within the jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Petitioner has a further contention that his appeal has been dismissed by the Chief of Army Staff who has jurisdiction over Kerala also and hence the writ petition is maintainable. In view of the decision in Assistant Security Officer v. Kullinga Gounder (1976 KLT 673 (DB)) the aforesaid contention is not tenable. We hold that the original petition is not maintainable. In the result, O.P is dismissed.