JUDGMENT 1. - The appeal is admitted. Mr. Virendra Lodha waives service for respondent. Looking to the controversy raised in the appeal, we are satisfied that the appeal may be heard at this stage itself. We proceed accordingly. 2. The present appellant is an unsuccessful writ petitioner. The writ petition filed by him came to be dismissed by the Single Judge on technical ground that the matter pertains to the jurisdiction of the principal seat at Jodhpur. 3. The appellant (for short, 'the petitioner') invoked high prerogative jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs : "(i) To direct the respondent to pay the salary to the petitioner to the post of Chief Chemist on which he is serving and discharging the duties as such for the last 7 years (since 19th January, 1992); (ii) To direct the respondent to fill up the post of Chief Chemist which is lying vacant since 1990 by promotion and as per the Rules of 1996 amended in the year 1998 at the earliest and within a specified time; (iii) To direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner to the post of Chief Chemist on regular side while making selection by promotion to the aforesaid post as per the Rules of 1996, which were amended in the year 1998; (iv) Respondent may be directed to make payment of the salary to the post of Chief Chemist to the petitioner since 18th January, 1992 as the petitioner is 'discharging the duties and responsibilities of the same since then; (v) Any other order which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in favour of the petitioner, which could not be prayed for specifically either due to inadvertance or ignorance but to which the petitioner is entitled in the interest of justice; (vi) Any other order which is just and proper in the interest of justice and in favour of the petitioner in the changed and subsequent circumstances may also be passed in favour of the petitioner so as to do justice with him; (vii) The writ petition be allowed with costs." 4. The aforesaid reliefs, were claimed against the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited (for short, 'the respondent'). 5. That the respondent has its registered office at Jaipur is not in dispute. 6. The aforesaid reliefs, were claimed against the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited (for short, 'the respondent'). 5. That the respondent has its registered office at Jaipur is not in dispute. 6. The principal grievance of the petitioner, firstly was that since 18th January, 1992 he has been discharging the duties of Chief Chemist and, therefore, entitled to the salary for that post since that date and, secondly, that being eligible for the post of Chief Chemist, he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Chief Chemist which has been lying vacant since 1990. 7. The Single Judge heavily relied upon the order dated 30.08.1990 passed by the Single Judge of this court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of jurisdiction as noticed above. 8. It is true that the petitioner filed the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4560/1989 earlier to the present controversy for quashing the selection/appointment of one Subhash Mukherjee on the post of Deputy Chief Chemist and also for quashing the selection/appointment by way of extension of one R.P. Agrawal on the post of Chief Chemist and for a further direction to the respondent to promote him on the post of Deputy Chief Chemist and for grooming him for Chief Chemist. In that writ i petition, a preliminary objection was raised by the respondent that since the post of Deputy Chief Chemist and Chief Chemist pertain to the respondent having its factory at Sri Ganganagar and, therefore, the principal seat at Jodhpur alone has jurisdiction to entertain such writ petition and not the Jaipur Bench. Reliance was placed by the respondent in this regard upon the notification dated December 23, 1976 issued by the then Acting Chief Justice. 9. The Single Judge in the earlier matter considered the objection thus : "At the outset, it may be stated that we cannot link Article 226(1) & (2) of the Constitution with the explanation appended to Notification dated Dec. 23, 1976 issued by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court. So far as Article 226(1) of the Constitution is concerned, it gives to the High Court of a state power to issue writs, directions and orders throughout the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. 23, 1976 issued by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court. So far as Article 226(1) of the Constitution is concerned, it gives to the High Court of a state power to issue writs, directions and orders throughout the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. This power according to Article 226(1) is exercisable as against any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government within the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises its jurisdiction. No doubt by virtue of Article 226(1) of the Constitution, the High Court Bench at Jaipur can issue directions to any person or authority including in appropriate cases the Government within the territories of the High Court. Similarly, the High Court at Jodhpur can exercise the same powers. Clause (2) deals with extra territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. This clause enables the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part arose, for the exercise of the power to issue writs, orders or directions even extra territorially i.e. even as against a Government or authority or person whose seat or who is not within the territory in relation to which the High Court exercises its jurisdiction. So far as the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they all deals with the scope of Article 226(2) of the Constitution which enlarges the jurisdiction of the High Court by giving it extra territorial jurisdiction in cases where the cause of action wholly or partly arises within the territory in relation to which the High Court exercises its jurisdiction. However, none of these cases deal with the question of jurisdiction where there is a main seat of the High Court and also a Bench at a different places and where distribution of business has been made in exercise of statutory powers. The present is a case where there is High Court of Rajasthan with its seat at Jodhpur and permanent Bench at Jaipur and there is a statutory notification distributing the powers relating to entertainment of cases and conduct of business of the High Court. The matter would, therefore, be governed solely by the explanation attached to the Notification dated Dec. 23, 1976. The matter would, therefore, be governed solely by the explanation attached to the Notification dated Dec. 23, 1976. In order to resolve any chances of conflict of exercise the powers by the High Court of Rajasthan, by a fixation, in relation to writ cases, it is inter alia provided that writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the cause of action, for issuing the first order pertaining to that case passed by an authority, has arisen. In this Explanation the expression, "where the cause of action for issuing the first order pertaining to that case passed by the authority has arisen" are of importance and specially important are the words `for issuing the first order'. The necessity for the first order to be issued by. the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. arose in the instant case because there had been some vacancy on the posts of Dy. Chief Chemist and Chief Chemist in Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., located at Sriganganagar. The Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., itself is located at Sriganganagar. The petitioner Brij Kishore Gupta is also serving on the. post of Sr. Manufacturing Chemist in the said Mills at Sriganganagar. The posts of Dy. Chief Chemist and Chief Chemist also existed and fell vacant in the Ganganagar Sugar Mills at Sriganganagar and any person to be promoted or appointed on the said post was also to work at Sri Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., at Sriganganagar,ln the light of these facts, I am of the opinion that the cause of action for issuing the order of promotion, re-employment or extension of appointment arose at Sri Ganganagar and not at all at Jaipur. In this view of the matter, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur alone has the jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. The High Court at Jaipur has no jurisdiction on account of the distribution of conduct of business made by Notification dated Dec. 23, 1976 and specially on account of the Explanation appended to the said notification to entertain the writ petition. I, therefore, refuse to entertain this writ petition on this preliminary ground and order that the writ petition alongwith its annexures be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur." 10. Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads thus : 226. I, therefore, refuse to entertain this writ petition on this preliminary ground and order that the writ petition alongwith its annexures be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur." 10. Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads thus : 226. 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 (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and (b) 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 cu,iferred 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." 11. The President of India in exercise of power conferred under Section 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 issued an order entitled the High Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 1976. By this Presidential order, a permanent bench of the High Court of Rajasthan was established at Jaipur. On 23rd December, 1976, the then Acting Chief Justice to the High Court of Rajasthan issued an order pursuant to the High of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 1976 and in exercise of the powers under sub-section .(2) .of Section 44 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 read with sections 54 and 57 of the States Reorgapisation Act, 1956. The order dated 23rd December, 1976 issued by the Acting Chief Justice reads thus : "Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Notification No. 1 /J. B. Dated : 23.12.1976 In pursuance of the High Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 1976, and in exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949, read with Sections 54 and 57 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to order that with effect from the 31.1.1977: (a) all cases arising in the revenue districts of Banswara, Barmer, Bikaner, Bhilwara, Chi'ttorgarh, Churu, Dungarpur, Ganganagar, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jodhpur, Nagaur, Pali, Sirohi and Udaipur (except such cases or class of cases as may by special order be transferred to the Jaipur Bench) shall be disposed of by the Court at Jodhpur, and (b) all cases arising in the revenue districts of Ajmer, Alwar, Bundi, Bharatpur, Jaipur, Jhalawar, Jhunjhunu, Kotah, Sawai Madhopur, Sikar and Tonk (except such case or class of cases as may by special order be transferred to the Court at Jodhpur) shall by disposed of by the Court at Jaipur : Provided that a Vacation Judge, whether sitting at Jodhpur or at Jaipur may hear any case irrespective of the district in which it has arisen for the purpose of deciding any matter which in his opinion requires immediate action. Explanation-A writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the first order pertaining to that case was passed by a court, tribunal or authority irrespective of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard and irrespective also of the fact whether or not there has been any modification or reversal of the order in appeal or revision. Sd/- Ved Pal Tyagi Chief Justice 23.12.1976." 12. Sd/- Ved Pal Tyagi Chief Justice 23.12.1976." 12. On 12.01.1977, the Acting Chief Justice issued yet another order substituting the existing explanation in the order dated 23.12.1976 by the following explanation : "In the above order for the explanation the following may be substituted : Explanation-A writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the cause of action for issuing the first order pertaining to that case passed by a court, tribunal, or authority has arisen irrespective of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard and irrespective also of the fact whether or not there has been any modification or reversal of the order in appeal or revision. Sd/- Ved Pal Tyagi Chief Justice 12.1.1977." 13. A writ petition was filed challenging the legality and constitutionality of explanation inserted in the order of Acting Chief Justice dated 23.12.1976 and the subsequent order dated 12.1.1977 being ultravires the powers of the Chief Justice. 14. The Division Bench was persuaded by the submission of the petitioner and held that the explanation appended by the order of the Chief Justice dated 23.12.1976 exceeded to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Chief Justice and consequently set aside the same. 15. Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association challenged the order of the Division Bench of this court before the Supreme Court. In its decision which is reported in 2001(2) SCC 294 , Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association v. Union of India and Others , the Supreme Court held that the explanation appended to the order of the Chief Justice dated 23.12.1976 runs counter to the Presidential Order and amounted to an inroad into the jurisdiction of the Judges hearing a particular case or cases, pre-empting a decision to be given in the facts of individual case whether it can be said to have arisen in the territory of a particular district. This is what the Supreme Court held : "17. The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially-settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action". It has to be left to be determined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises. The Chief Justice of the High Court has not been conferred with the legislative competence to define-cause of action or to declare where it would be deemed to have arisen so as to lay down artificial or deeming test for determining territorial jurisdiction over an individual case or class of cases. The permanent Bench at Jaipur has been established by the Presidential Order issued under sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act. The territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench at Jaipur is to be exercised in respect of the cases arising in the specified districts. Whether the case arises from one of the specified districts or not so as to determine the jurisdictional competence to hear by reference to territory bifurcated between the principal seat and the Bench seat, shall be an issue to be decided in an individual case by the Judge or Judges hearing the matter if a question may arise in that regard. The impugned explanation appended to the order of the Chief Justice dated 23.12.1976 runs counter to the Presidential Order and in a sense it is an inroad into the jurisdiction of the Judges hearing a particular case or cases, pre-empting a decision to be given in the facts of individual case whether it can be said to have arisen in the territory of a particular district. The High Court is right in taking the view which it has done. 18. The High Court is right in taking the view which it has done. 18. It was submitted at the end by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Division Bench of the High Court in its impugned order has observed that the permanent Bench at Jaipur shall have .exclusive jurisdiction" to hear the cases arising out of the 11 specified districts and the High Court at Jodhpur shall not have jurisdiction to hear those cases which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench. He submitted that the use of word "exclusive" prefixed to "jurisdiction" is uncalled for. We find no substance in this contention as well. The purpose of the Presidential Order is to carve out and define territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat at Jodhpur and the permanent Bench seat at Jaipur. The cases are to be heard accordingly, unless the Chief Justice may exercise in his discretion the power vested in him by the proviso to para 2 of the Presidential Order. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution provide how territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised by any High Court. Although the said clauses do not deal with principal seat or permanent Bench of any High Court but in our opinion, there is no reason why the principle underlying thereunder cannot be applied to the functioning of the bifurcated territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat and permanent Bench seat of any High Court. In case of a dispute arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed `and heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the same has to be found out by applying the test-from which district the case arises, that is, in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution." 16. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association, the decision of the Single Judge in the case of Brij Kishore Gupta v. The Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4560 of 1989 dated 30.08.1990 cannot be said to be laying down correct law. As a matter of fact, the said judgment stands impliedly over-ruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association cited supra. 17. As a matter of fact, the said judgment stands impliedly over-ruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association cited supra. 17. The view of the Single Judge reflected in the order dated 10th May, 2006 impugned in the present appeal, thus, cannot be sustained. It is quashed and set aside. The writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4819/1999) is restored to the file of Single Judge for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Order accordingly. No costs.Appeal allowed. *******