Judgment : Per P. K. MISRA, J. 1. These Habeas corpus Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India for quashing the orders of detention passed under Act 14 of 1982 by the District Collector at Perambalur. 2. The question regarding maintainability of the Habeas Corpus Petitions has been raised by the Registry on the ground that Perambalur district comes within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Chennai and, therefore, the Habeas Corpus Petitions should have been filed before the Principal Bench at Chennai and not before the Permanent Bench at Madurai. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that even though the orders of detention were passed by the District Collector of Perambalur, the orders were signed by the detenues when they were lodged in central Prison, Tirichirapalli, Trichirapalli District, which comes within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to the Permanent Bench at Madurai. Learned counsel for the petitioners has therefore submitted that since a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench at Madurai, the Habeas Corpus Petitions have been filed before the Permanent Bench at Madurai. 4. In Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal AIR 1976 SC 311 the Supreme Court while considering the territorial jurisdiction between Allahabad had Lucknow Benches in Uttar Pradesh, observed that a writ petition can be filed before the Court where the cause of actin arose wholly or in part. Similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India and Others AIR 2001 SC 216 in connection with the matter relating to Rajasthan High Court, where the Principal Bench is at Jodhpur and the Permanent Bench is at Jaipur. 5. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the detention order was served on the detenues while such detenues were lodged in the Central prison at Tirichirapalli. 6. Having regard to all these aspects, it can be observed that cause of action for filing of the Habeas Corpus Petitions have arisen in part within the area coming under the jurisdiction of the Permanent Bench of Madurai. In such view of the matter, the Habeas Corpus Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are maintainable.