JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, J: in these two writ appeals the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.04.2010 in W.P. Nos. 20093-94/2009 is assailed. 2. The writ petitions were filed questioning the orders issued by the Registrar of Newspaper for India (for short RNI') dated 15.06.2009 and 29.11.2009. They had also sought for writ of mandamus to the respondents not to verily, approve, authenticate or register the titles 'Financial Times 'Facsimile' and / or FT Weekend Facsimile'. During the pendency of the writ petitions an application came to be moved by the respondents seeking dismissal of the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. This controversy was heard and ultimately the learned single Judge has held that the petitions were liable to be rejected on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petitions were also dismissed keeping all contentions open. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, the present writ appeals are filed. 3. The genesis of the subject matter relates to 1984. On 27.2.1984 the appellant company sought for approval of newspaper with the title 'Financial Times' by filing an application with the respondent No.4 (Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore). By letter dated 5.5.1984 RNI informed the concerned District Magistrate that newspaper title 'Financial Times' was available, on verification. A declaration in this regard required under Section 5(2) of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 (for short 'PRB Act') was sought. Though it was for the publication of a daily newspaper, later on it was changed to weekly publication by another declaration, which was also authenticated by the respondent on 7.10.93. By 1990. the appellant company started publishing its newspaper in English language at Bangalore. Due to some commercial problems it was discontinued and recommenced in 1993. Therefore, the appellant company is publishing its weekly newspaper at Bangalore under the title 'Financial Times' since 1993. 4. A suit came to be filed by the 6th respondent 'Financial Times Ltd., United Kingdom' against the appellant company in 0.S.7087/1997 contending that the appellants herein were carrying on business at Bangalore and they have published and circulated the newspaper under the title FT at Bangalore, therefore, the cause of action arose at Bangalore within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Bangalore, which had territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the suit. It is also pertinent to mention that an exparte order of temporary injunction came to be granted by the Trial Court, which was questioned by the appellants before the High Court in MF A.330/ 1994. This Court set aside the order of injunction making certain observations. This order came to be challenged by the 6th respondent before the Apex Court and on 23.9.1994 the Apex Court declined to interfere with the said judgment and permitted the appellants to continue to publish the newspaper and directed expeditious disposal of the suit. In the meanwhile, the appellant company was also granted permission for the second newspaper under the title 'Financial Times' by RNI for publishing the said newspaper in English from Delhi. Ultimately, the suit came to be dismissed on 24.9.2002 with certain observations, which will be referred to later. This came to be challenged in RFA No.193/2003 and the same is pending consideration. 5. Under Trade Marks Act a certificate issued for registration of newspaper titled 'Financial Times' was cancelled suo motu by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and the same came to be challenged under PRB Act and also by way of writ petition before the High Court of Delhi. Mter issuing rule, stay was granted. Meanwhile, trademark registration time was extended and is in force till 31.12.2012. 6. In the meantime, in the month of May, 2009, respondent No.5 sought for permission to publish fascimile editions of U.R. publication. The appellants learnt about this through the blogs posted on internet and immediately addressed several representations to respondent No. 1- RNI. The appellants filed Quia Timet suit in the Delhi High Court inter alia seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from approving the title 'Financial Times' or 'Financial 'Times Facsimile', or any title similar to the appellants' title. Summons and notices were also issued in the said suit. According to the appellants, even in the said suit, as defendants, the present respondents took a stand that though the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction, the said Court had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. They also sought for stay of the suit by filing an application under Section 10 as there was earlier suit pending between the parties in the Delhi Courts. 7. They also sought for stay of the suit by filing an application under Section 10 as there was earlier suit pending between the parties in the Delhi Courts. 7. During the pendency of the litigation, the 1st respondent proceeded to pass 2 orders on 15.6.2009 verifying the availability of titles 'Financial Times Facsimile' and 'Financial Times Weekend Facsimile', in favour of the 5th respondent. The 3rd respondent the competent authority, under Section 6 of the PRB Act at Delhi, wrote to the 1st respondent by letters dated 28.5.2009 and 30.6.2009 that the title Financial Times' had already been registered in favour of the appellants. With similar contentions, written statement also came to be filed in the suit before the Delhi Courts. At that point of time, the appellants sought leave of the High Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. Accordingly, the appellants were permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings. Under these circumstances, the appellants have approached this Court. 8. The controversy between the parties is with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the litigation, viz. Whether it should be at Delhi or could it be at Bangalore'? 9. Contending that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, respondents filed the application and the same was entertained and the relevant facts are already referred to at the beginning of the order. The learned single Judge has held that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Delhi though appellants have a branch office at Karnataka.Times Publishing House Ltd., New Delhi Vs. The Registrar of Newspapers of India 2083 10. According to the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Udaya Holla appearing for the appellants, rights of the appellant to the title Financial Times accrued to them at Bangalore by their filing a declaration at Bangalore with the title Financial Times, its authentication at Bangalore by the deposit of the declaration in a Court at Bangalore which clothed them with a right to use the title 'Financial Times' exclusively as per Sec.6 of the PRB Act and hence this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition., He contends that if initial declaration of publication for publishing the newspaper at Bangalore was not there, automatically the appellants could not have had permission to publish the newspaper at Delhi. According to him, it was not the case of the appellants that because of the branch office at Bangalore, they could approach this Court and that their case from the beginning has been is that authentication and declaration was at Bangalore and the same is clearly mentioned in the rejoinder, therefore., the learned single Judge was not justified in saying so. The perusal of the averments in the writ petition and the rejoinder would no doubt indicate that the case of the appellants regarding jurisdiction was with reference to the declaration having been authenticated at Bangalore. 11. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Holla relies on Times Publishing House Ltd. Vs. Financial Times Ltd. London & Others (1995 (1) Karnataka Law Journal 219] to contend that for printing and publishing under a particular title, prior approval of Registrar of Newspapers is required. Registration of title regulates the right to publish a Newspaper in India. Press and Registration of Books Act restricts publication of any newspaper in India by a nonresident. This judgment contemplates that the procedure under PRB At has to be complied with as registration of title regulates the right to publish a newspaper in India. 12. On the question whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, he relies upon the following decisions on the aspect of cause of action: a) Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Another, (2004) 6 SCC 254 . b) Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 207 . c) Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 640 . d) Alchemist Ltd and Another Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 335 . e) Canara Banh Vs. Vasudeva Rao, ILR 1985 Karnataka 2388. f) D Dr. P.S. Rao Vs. The Union Government and Others, AIR 1974 Mysore 39 (DB). g) D. Munirangappa Vs. Amidayala Venktappa, 1965(1) Mys. L.J. 20l. h) Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs. R.K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, (2010) 1 SCC 457 . 13. In these decision, their Lordships referring to the meaning of cause of action proceed to hold that though definition of cause of action finds no place either in Civil Procedure Code or in the Constitution of India by judicial precedents it would mean every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to submit his right to judgment. A bundle of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court is 'cause of action'. The said bundle of facts are nothing but essential and material facts required to be proved by the petitioner to secure an order in his favour. It is possible that that bundle of facts could arise more than at one place but at the option of the petitioner he can chose either of the places or any of the places, if it is more than two places if a fraction of cause of action has arisen at such place, to initiate action to decide the right of the petitioner. 14. Article 226(2) of the Constitution refers to the territorial jurisdiction of a Court, to entertain the writ petitions. The expressions used in Article 226(2) of the Constitution are similar to Section 20(c) of Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, in several decision referred to above, their Lordships have said that even if a part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, that Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. After the 42nd amendment to the Constitution, the High Court could issue writs against the authorities outside its territorial jurisdiction provided within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court the cause of action arose wholly or in part. 15. The gist of the above cases is to the effect that in order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that the legal right claimed by him has prima facie been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the opposite side within the territorial limits of the Courts jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereon. The operative facts which constitute cause of action give rise to one or more places of suing depending upon where and how those operating facts have come into existence. If a complaint is lodged on false grounds at one plan contending malafide intention to harass the petitioner with regard to shares, the other place will also have territorial jurisdiction provided if a part of cause of action arises within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. 16. As against the above, Mr. If a complaint is lodged on false grounds at one plan contending malafide intention to harass the petitioner with regard to shares, the other place will also have territorial jurisdiction provided if a part of cause of action arises within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. 16. As against the above, Mr. Ajay Gupta, learned Senior Counsel arguing for the respondents has contended that the registered office of the appellant newspaper is at New Delhi and although application for determining the availability of the title "Financial Times" was made by the appellant to respondent No.4, the same appeared to 4ave been forwarded by R-4 to R-1 at Delhi on the same day pursuant whereof by order dated 15.5.1984 R-J. made available "Financial Times" and hence no part of cause of action arose at Bangalore. He has further contended that as the certificate of Registration in favour of the appellant was issued at New Delhi and the titles "Financial Times Fascimile" and 'FT' Weekend Fascimile" were verified and allotted in favour of Respondent No.5 by respondent No.1 at Delhi which are the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition no part of cause of action has arisen at Bangalore. He has further urged that even the representations against the said allotment to the 5th respondent were made by the appellant by its registered office at New Delhi to R.No.1 at New Delhi complaining against such grant. Mr. Gupta relies on the following decisions on the very aspect of cause of action': a) State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. M/s Swaika Properties and another, (1985) 3 SCG 217. b) Oil and Natural Gas Commissioner Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 711 . c) Union of India Vs. Adani Exports Ltd AIR 2002 SC 126 . d) Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd Vs. Union of India and Another, (2004) 6 SCC 254 ]; e) Alchemist Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335 ; f) Eastern Coal Fields Ltd Vs. Kalyan Banerjee, (2008) 3 SCC 456 . g) Mosaraf Hossain Khan Vs. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd., (2006) 3 SCC 658 . h) M/s. Drolia Elecltro Steel Put Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others, (W.P. No. 17828/2006 D.D. 2nd July 2008). i) Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association Vs. S.C. Sekar and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 784 . J) Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. g) Mosaraf Hossain Khan Vs. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd., (2006) 3 SCC 658 . h) M/s. Drolia Elecltro Steel Put Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others, (W.P. No. 17828/2006 D.D. 2nd July 2008). i) Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association Vs. S.C. Sekar and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 784 . J) Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. Kalyan Banerjee, (2008) 3 SCC 456 k) Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Bhagwan Singh Bhati, (2008) 3 SCC 462 ; 17. In the above cases also their Lordships were referring to the territorial jurisdiction of a Court depending upon whether the whole or part of cause of action had arisen in that Court. The principles laid down in the above said decisions are to the effect that cause of action is nothing but bundle of facts which are required to be proved by the petitioner to entitle him to ajudgment. 'The Court has to see the essential and material facts out of the bundle of facts to form an opinion as to which Court has territorial jurisdiction. All facts pleaded may not constitute cause of action. The essential and material facts which would entitle a party to succeed in his case constitute cause of action. Therefore, there cannot be a rowing enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the facts and the Court has to see the grounds set forth in the plaint to arrive at a conclusion whether a particular Court has territorial jurisdiction or not. The contentions regarding cause of action are material and essential as it would decide whether cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of a Court. When a substantial part of cause of action has arisen within a jurisdiction of a Court, that Court will have jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the petition. There must be nexus with the lis and the facts pleaded in a case because facts which have no bearing on the disputed issues involved in the case do not give rise to a cause of action. The situs of the maker of the statutory rule or issuance of executive order would not confer jurisdiction upon a Court therefore the facts which are necessary to establish the case of the suitor alone constitute cause of action. The situs of the maker of the statutory rule or issuance of executive order would not confer jurisdiction upon a Court therefore the facts which are necessary to establish the case of the suitor alone constitute cause of action. While explaining the bundle of facts the act done by the opposite party is also relevant as such act would give rise to approach the Court by the petitioner. It is also said the end result of the cause of action cannot be a cause of action by itself. In other words, the basis on which the petitioner intends to establish his case would be cause of action. 18. In reply, the learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the stand of the respondents right from the beginning before the Trial Court at Bangalore and also in the written statements filed at Delhi would indicate that they were referring to the jurisdiction of Courts at Bangalore, rather than Delhi seeking for dismissal of the respective suits filed against the respondents. Therefore, withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh litigation on the same cause of action would mean the appellants can approach this Court and there is no justification in the observation of the learned single Judge that it is nothing but forum shopping. According to the appellants, being dominus litus, forum shopping does not apply to them, as once the suit is withdrawn, it is virtually treated as not filed. With these averments, he seeks for allowing the appeals by setting aside the orders of the learned single Judge. 19. In order to understand the nature of the rights of the petitioners, violation of which is complained and as to whether the appellants could approach this Court, we need to examine the relevant provisions of the PRB Act, so also the essential and material facts, which the appellants have to establish to succeed. According to the appellants, cause of action arose in Bangalore within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court as contended in the writ petition because various requirements of PRB Act to obtain the right to publish their newspaper were complied with at Bangalore. The following provisions have to be understood with reference to the material and essential facts pleaded by the petitioner. The following provisions have to be understood with reference to the material and essential facts pleaded by the petitioner. PRB Act: "Section.3: Particulars to be printed on books and papers.-Every book or paper printed within (India) shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing, and (if the book or paper by published) (the name) of the publisher, and the place of publication." 'Section-5: Rules as to publication of newspapers. No (newspaper) shall be published in (India), except in conformity with the rules hereinafter laid down: (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 3, every copy of every such newspaper shall contain the names of the owner and editor thereof printed clearly on such copy and also the date of its publication. (2) The printer and the publisher of every such (newspaper) shall appear (in person or by agent authorised in this behalf in accordance with rules made under Section 20, before a District, Presidency or Sub-divisional. Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such newspaper shall be printed or published (***) and shall make and subscribe, in duplicate, the following declaration: "I, AB., declare, that I am the printer (or publisher, or printer and publisher) of the (newspaper) entitled-( and to be printed or published, or to be printed and published), as the case may be at......." And the last blank in this form of declaration shall be filled up with a true and precise account of the premises where the printing or publication is conducted. 19. In order to understand the nature of the rights of the petitioners, violation of which is complained and as to whether the appellants could approach this Court, we need to examine the relevant provisions of the PRB Act, so also the essential and material facts, which the appellants have to establish to succeed. According to the appellants, cause of action arose in Bangalore within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court as contended in the writ petition because various requirements of PRB Act to obtain the right to publish their newspaper were complied with at Bangalore. The following provisions have to be understood with reference to the material and essential facts pleaded by the petitioner. The following provisions have to be understood with reference to the material and essential facts pleaded by the petitioner. PRB Act: "Section.3: Particulars to be printed on books and papers.-Every book or paper printed within (India) shall have printed legibly on it the name of the printer and the place of printing, and (if the book or paper by published) (the name) of the publisher, and the place of publication." 'Section-5: Rules as to publication of newspapers.No (newspaper) shall be published in (India), except in conformity with the rules hereinafter laid down: (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 3, every copy of every such newspaper shall contain the names of the owner and editor thereof printed clearly on such copy and also the date of its publication. (2) The printer and the publisher of every such (newspaper) shall appear (in person or by agent authorised in this behalf in accordance with rules made under Section 20, before a District, Presidency or Sub-divisional. Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such newspaper shall be printed or published (***) and shall make and subscribe, in duplicate, the following declaration: "I, AB., declare, that I am the printer (or publisher, or printer and publisher) of the (newspaper) entitled-( and to be printed or published, or to be printed and published), as the case may be at......." And the last blank in this form of declaration shall be filled up with a true and precise account of the premises where the printing or publication is conducted. (2-A) Every declaration under Rule (2) shall specify the title of the newspaper, the language in which it is to be published and the periodicity of its publication and shall contain such other particulars as may be prescribed.) (2-B) Where the printer or publisher of a newspaper making a declaration under Rule (2) is not the owner thereof, the declaration shall specify the name of the owner and shall also be accompanied by an authority in writing from the owner authorising such person to I?-1ake and subscribe such declaration. (2-C) A declaration in respect of a newspaper made under Rule (2) and authenticated under Section 6 shall be necessary before the newspaper can be published. (2-C) A declaration in respect of a newspaper made under Rule (2) and authenticated under Section 6 shall be necessary before the newspaper can be published. (2-D) Where the title of any newspaper or its language or the periodicity of its publication is changed in declaration shall cease to have effect and a new declaration shall be necessary before the publication of the newspaper can be continued. (2-E) As often as the ownership of a newspaper is changed, a new declaration shall be necessary.) (3) As often as the place of printing or publication is changed, a new declaration shall be necessary: (Provided that where the change is for a period not exceeding thirty days and the place of printing or publication after the change is within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate referred to in Rule (2), no new declaration shall be necessary if- (a) a statement relating to the change is furnished to the said Magistrate within twenty-four hours thereof; and (b) the printer or publisher or the printer and publisher of the newspaper continues to be the same). (4) As often as the printer or the publisher who shall have made such declarations as is aforesaid shall leave India for a period exceeding ninety days or where such printer or publisher is by infirmity or otherwise rendered incapable of carrying out his duties for a period exceeding ninety days in circumstances not involving the vacation of his appointment, a new declaration shall be necessary.) (5) Every declaration made in respect of a newspaper shall be void, where the newspaper does not commence publication- (a) within six weeks (of the authentication of the declaration under Section 6), in the case of a newspaper to be published once a week or oftener; and (b) within three months (of the authentication of the declaration under Section 6), in the case of any other newspaper. and in every such case, a new declaration shall be necessary before the newspaper can be published. (6) Where, in any period of three months, any daily, triweekly, bi-weekly, weekly or fortnightly newspaper publishes issues the number of which is less than half of what should have been published in accordance with the declaration made in respect thereof, the declaration shall cease to have effect and a new declaration shall be necessary before the publication of the newspaper can be continued. (7) Where any other newspaper has ceased publication for a period, exceeding twelve months, every declaration made in respect thereof shall cease to have effect, and a new declaration shall be necessary before the newspaper can be republished. (8) Every existing declaration in respect of a newspaper shall be cancelled by the Magistrate before whom a new declaration is made and subscribed in respect of the same:) (Provided that no person (who does not ordinarily reside in India, or) who has not attained majority in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9) of 1875), or of the law to which he is subject in respect of attainment of majority, shall be permitted to make the declaration prescribed by this section, nor shall any such person edit a newspaper.)" Section:6-Authentication of declaration.-Each of the two originals of every declaration so made and subscribed as is aforesaid, shall be authenticated by the signature and official seal of the Magistrate before whom the said declaration shall have been made: (Provided that where any declaration is made and subscribed under Section 5in respect of a newspaper, the declaration shall not, save in the case of newspapers owned by the same person, be so authenticated unless the Magistrate (is, on inquiry from the Press Registrar, satisfied) that the newspaper proposed to be published does not bear a title which is the same as, or similar to, that of any other newspaper published either in the same language or in the same State.) Deposit-One of the said originals shall be deposited among the records of the office of the Magistrate, and the other shall be deposited among the records of the High Court of Judicature, or (other principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for the place where) the said declaration shall have been made. Inspection and supply of copies.- The Officer-in-Charge of each original shall allow any person to inspect that the original on payment of a fee of one rupee, and shall give to any person applying for a copy of the said declaration, attested by the seal of the Court which has the custody of the original, on payment of a fee of two rupees. (A copy of the declaration attested by the official seal of the Magistrate or a copy of the order refusing to authenticate the declaration, shall be forwarded as soon as possible to the person making and subscribing the declaration and also to the Press Registrar)." Section 8-B: Cancellation of declaration:- If, on an application made to him by the Press Registrar or any other person or otherwise, the Magistrate empowered to authenticate a declaration under this Act, is of opinion that any declaration made in respect of a newspaper should be cancelled, he may after giving the person concerned an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken, hold an inquiry into the matter and if, after considering the cause, if any, shown by such person and after giving him an opportunity of being heard, he is satisfied that (i) the newspaper, in respect of which the declaration has been made is being published in contravention of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder; or (ii) the newspaper mentioned in the declaration bears a title which is the same as or similar to, that of any other newspaper published either in the same language or in the same State; or (iii) the printer or publisher has ceased to be (he printer or publisher of the newspaper mentioned in such declaration; or (iv) the declaration was made on false representation or on the concealment of any material fact or in respect of a periodical work which is not a newspaper, the Magistrate may, by order, cancel the declaration and shall forward as soon as possible a copy of the order to the person making or subscribing the declaration and also to the Press Registrar." Section-BC-: (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of a Magistrate refusing to authenticate a declaration under Section 6 or cancelling a declaration under Section B-B may, within sixty days from the date on which such order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Board to be called the Press and Registration Appellate Board (consisting of a Chairman and another member to be nominated by the Press Council of India, established under Section 4 of the Press Councils Act 1978, from among its members: Provided that the Appellate Board may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant• was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) On receipt of an appeal under this section, the Appellate Board may, after calling for the records from the Magistrate and after making such further inquiries as it thinks fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order appealed against. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), the Appellate Board may, by order, regulate its practice and procedure. (4) The decision of the Appellate Board shall be final.)" Section 11-B: Copies of newspapers to be delivered to Press Registrar-Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the publisher of every newspaper in India shall deliver free of expense to the Press Registrar one copy of each issue of such newspaper as soon as it is published.)" Section 13: Penalty for keeping press without making declaration required by Section 4.-"Whoever shall keep in his possession any such press as aforesaid, (in contravention of any of the provisions contained in Section 4 of this Act), shall. on conviction before a Magistrate, be punished by fine not exceeding (two thousand) rupees, or by simple imprisonment for a term not exceeding (six months), or by both." Section 14: Punishment for making false statement. "Any person who shall, in making (any declaration or other statement) under the authority of this Act, make a statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, shall, on conviction before a Magistrate be punished by fine not exceeding (two thousand) rupees, and imprisonment for a term not exceeding (six months)." Section15: Penalty for printing or publishing newspaper without conforming to rules.-(1) Whoever shall (edit), print or publish any (newspaper), without conforming to the rules hereinbefore laid down, or whoever shall (edit), print or publish, or shall cause to be (edited) printed or published, any (newspaper), knowing that the said rules have not been observed with respect to (that newspaper), shall on conviction before a Magistrate, be punished with fine not exceeding (two thousand) rupees, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding (six months) or both. (2) Where an offence is committed in relation to a newspaper under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, in addition to the punishment imposed under the said sub-section, also cancel the declaration in respect of the newspaper.) "Section 19-C: Certificates of registration.-On receiving from the Magistrate under Section 6, a copy of the declaration in respect of a newspaper (and on the publication of such newspaper the Press Registrar shall), as soon as practicable thereafter, issue a certificate of registration in respect of that newspaper to the publisher thereof." REGISTRATION OF NEWSPAPER (CENTRAL) RULES 1956 Rule 7: Maintenance of the Register.-(1) The Press Registrar shall maintain a Register of Newspapers in Form Ill. (2) The pages of the Register shall be numbered consecutively and entries in respect of a newspaper shall start from a fresh page. When particulars enumerated in Form I have been entered in the Register in respect of a newspaper, the Press Registrar shall allot a registration number to that newspaper. Initial entries in the Register and subsequent changes, if any, shall be duly authenticated under the signature of the Press Registrar. (3) The Press Registrar shall, in respect of every newspaper, cause relevant entries to be made in the Register and before making any entry therein, he may make such verification of the statements furnished to him by the newspaper as he may consider necessary. Rule 10: Certificate of registration.-(l) Where a publisher makes a declaration before a Magistrate, the Press Registrar shall, as soon practicable, after receipt of the copy of the declaration, issue to the publisher a certificate of registration in Form V. (2) On receipt of information furnished by the publisher of newspaper and upon allotting under Rule 7(2) a registration number to that newspaper, the Press Registrar may also issue to the publisher ac certificate of registration in Form V. 20. The object of PRB Act is for regulating, printing and publishing newspapers in India. 21. Section 5 of the PRB Act refers to rules as to publication of newspapers and proceeds to say that no newspaper can be published in India except in accordance with the rules mentioned therein. From the reading of the above section, it is understood that before the commencement of publication, the printer and publisher of a newspaper has to appear before a Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction he intends to print or publish a newspaper. From the reading of the above section, it is understood that before the commencement of publication, the printer and publisher of a newspaper has to appear before a Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction he intends to print or publish a newspaper. He has to subscribe a declaration narrating the place of printing, the place of publication, name of the printer and the name of the publisher as required under Section 3 of the Act. The proviso to Section 6 is also relevant which is referred above. This is with reference to authentication of a declaration by the Magistrate who must be satisfied, after due enquiry from the concerned authority, the Press Registrar, that the title of the proposed newspaper is not the same or similar to that of an existing newspaper either in the same language or in the same State. There is exception in the case of the same owner. Before a newspaper could be published, the declaration made under Section 5(2) vas to be authenticated and before such authentication of a declaration by the Magistrate, he must be satisfied after due enquiry that the title of the proposed paper is not the same or similar to that of an existing one. Therefore, the declaration and authentication are two Important and relevant requirements that have to be complied with before a newspaper could be published. This authenticated declaration is to give protection to a title of a newspaper in favour of its owner in the same language all over' India or in any language within the same State. Wherever there is a change in any of the prescribed particulars the same have to be furnished afresh i.e., a declaration regarding the name of the owner, name of the publisher, name of the printer, title and a true and precise account of the place where the printing has to be conducted has to be furnished again if there is any change in such particulars. Similarly, the place where the publication has to be effected and the language in which it is proposed to be published have to be furnished. It is also provided under the very same Section 5 that a person who is not ordinarily residing in India, is not permitted to make declaration. 22. Similarly, the place where the publication has to be effected and the language in which it is proposed to be published have to be furnished. It is also provided under the very same Section 5 that a person who is not ordinarily residing in India, is not permitted to make declaration. 22. The other provisions of the Act also provide depositing one of the originals of the authenticated declaration with the High Court or the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the place where the declaration shall have to be made. A copy of the original authenticated declaration attested by the seal of the 'said Court as empowered by the PRB Act can be treated as sufficient evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings. 23. Section 8-B speaks of cancellation of declaration. The registration of certificate of title is provided under Rule 10 of the Central Rules of 1956. Rule 10 contemplates procedure for notification of the title in the register. Without complying with the PRB Act, if printing and publishing of newspaper takes place, it attracts prosecution and penalty under various provisions. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 indicates that the Press Registrar shall in respect of every newspaper cause relevant entries to be made in the register. Before making any entry, he is required to make such verification of the statement furnished to him by the newspaper as he may consider necessary. The question is whether issuance of registration certificate by the RNI is decisive or the declaration and its authentication by the concerned magistrate is of paramount importance. On consideration of the facts, it is seen that the declaration and authentication is mandatory before publication of a newspaper. Authentication is also by a Magistrate referred to under the proviso to Section 6 and not by the RNI The only exercise RNI does in this process is he would verify and inform about the availability of the title when the Magistrate enquires with the RNI for the availability of the proposed title. If the title is already in existence, there cannot be any declaration and its authentication. As already stated above, that authenticated declaration has to be with the Prl. Civil Court having jurisdiction. The cancellation of a declaration is referred to in Section 8(B). If the title is already in existence, there cannot be any declaration and its authentication. As already stated above, that authenticated declaration has to be with the Prl. Civil Court having jurisdiction. The cancellation of a declaration is referred to in Section 8(B). There is no reference to cancellation of a registration certificate issued by the RNL A close scrutiny of Section 8(E) indicates that it is the Magistrate who hold~, enquiry and makes an order for cancellation of declaration made on an application by the Press Registrar. Similar powers .are not vested with the RNI. After cancellation of the declaration by the Magistrate, it is intimated to RNI. and then only RNI could remove the title from the register maintained by him. 24. Section 8C provides for an appeal against an order passed by a Magistrate refusing to authenticate a declaration. Section HB requires delivery of a newspaper to the RNI by the publisher. If there is a violation, a complaint can be lodged to the Magistrate. Penalties in relation to declaration is provided by Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the Act. No such consequence is provided with regard to issuance of certificate of registration. The entire procedure would show that declaration and authentication are conditions precedent for publication of a newspaper. Certificate of registration is issued by the. RNI after publication of the newspaper. Therefore, issuance of registration certificate is a formal act which could be ascertained from reading Section .19-C. No enquiry whatsoever is contemplated in the issuance of the certificate, whereas, detailed enquiry is contemplated before the authentication of declaration or cancellation of authenticated declaration is done. When once the declaration becomes void, certification of registration will cease automatically. Therefore, declaration and its authentication are very essential for issuance of registration certificate. 24. After referring to the provisions of the Act, we have to now see whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. 25. In the present case, according to the learned Single Judge, the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi. Therefore this Court cannot entertain the present writ petition merely because the petitioner has a branch in Karnataka. 25. In the present case, according to the learned Single Judge, the entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi. Therefore this Court cannot entertain the present writ petition merely because the petitioner has a branch in Karnataka. From the reading of the above decisions, it 'is very clear that though the entire averments in the writ petition would not constitute a cause of action if the essential material giving rise to substantial or part of cause of action has arisen within the limits of this Court, it will also get the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. 26. From a reading of the provisions of PRB Act, 1867 it would indicate that declaration and its authentication are essential ingredients to have the registration certificate. Such declaration under Section 5 of the said Act and its authentication for the 'Financial Times' is at Bangalore an4 the publication is also at Bangalore. Without such declaration and its authentication at Bangalore, the appellants could not have published their newspaper. Certificate of registration is given after submitting the publication of a newspaper with all the details required. Definitely these facts have to be termed as essential and material facts. Therefore, it is not the mere fact of having a branch office at Bangalore but the essential and material facts relating to declaration and authentication as mentioned above that would constitute substantial portion of the cause of action at Bangalore. Therefore, the opinion of the learned Single Judge to the contrary is not justified. 27. According to the learned Single Judge, the appellants have their registered office at New Delhi. The impugned order sought to be quashed are issued by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 at Delhi. Therefore, no cause of action would arise at Bangalore except for the fact that the appellants/ petitioners have the publishing centre at Bangalore. As already stated above, the newspaper of the appellants under the title 'Financial Times' came to be registered because the declaration, its authentication and publication took place at Bangalore. As a matter of fact, the office of the 6th respondent is at London in United Kingdom and even the 6th respondent has his branch office only at New Delhi. As already stated above, the newspaper of the appellants under the title 'Financial Times' came to be registered because the declaration, its authentication and publication took place at Bangalore. As a matter of fact, the office of the 6th respondent is at London in United Kingdom and even the 6th respondent has his branch office only at New Delhi. In the present case, the appellants claim exclusive right for the publication of newspaper 'Financial Times' and in order to get this title, the important and relevant material facts were the declaration and its authentication which has happened at Bangalore. Though the certificate of registration is also relevant, the said certificate is only a record to show that all the formalities to have the title of a newspaper are completed after due verification. The necessary procedure did emanate from Bangalore and only after the formalities being completed at Bangalore, the registration certificate of the paper was briven at New Delhi because the office of RNI is at Delhi. By virtue of getting a registration certificate at Delhi, it can be contended that part of cause of action arose even at Delhi but the fact remains that a substantial part of the cause of action has arisen at Bangalore for the reasons mentioned above. 28. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that respondent Nos. 1 & 5 are stationed at Delhi and even the two impugned orders of RNI emerge out of the office of RNI at Delhi. Therefore, this High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. As held in several judgment of the Apex Court the expression used in Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India, is similar to the one used in Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. It is indeed for this reason that in several judgments the Apex Court has held that even if a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of one Court and other part within the territorial jurisdiction of other Court, neither of them would be incompetent to deal with the writ petition as both' will have jurisdiction by virtue of part of cause of action arising in the jurisdiction of the respective Courts. Therefore, the argument of the Counsel for the respondents is untenable. 29. Therefore, the argument of the Counsel for the respondents is untenable. 29. It is well settled that the cause of action comprises of material/integral facts needed to be proved by the appellants/petitioners herein to succeed in getting the relief they seek. Apparently these essential material facts consist of declaration, its authentication and publication. It is the specific case of the petitioners that their rights to the title Financial Times accrued to them by virtue of the legislative mandate contained in Sec.6 of the Act. This averment is made in the writ petition by referring to and extracting the proviso to Sec.6 and stating clearly that declaration in terms of the Act, was authenticated by Rule 4 at Bangalore which was valid till date and that the news paper was being published by the first petitioner in English language from Bangalore since 1990. It is therefore, contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant substantiating these averments that the right for exclusive use of the title "Financial Times" has accrued in favour of the appellant at Bangalore as an integral and essential component of Sec.6 and hence the integral part of appellant's cause of action has arisen due to the alleged breach of this right under Sec.6. Whether there is any such breach is the dispute on merits. As long as the right asserted by the petitioner is based on declaration of the title and its authentication at Bangalore and of the publication of the paper at Bangalore with the title "Financial Times" keeping in mind the provisions contained in the Act including Sections 5 & 6, we are of the clear view that a substantial part of the cause of action for the writ petition has arisen at Bangalore and hence this Court has got jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The decision of the Apex Court in Omprakash Srivatsava Vs. Union of India and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 207 particularly para 12 supports the contention of the appellants. 30. As a matter of fact except the situs of some of the respondents being at Delhi and the fact that the registration certificate of the appellants was obtained at Delhi all other essential ingredients to have the certificate of registration are at Bangalore. Therefore, the substantial part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 30. As a matter of fact except the situs of some of the respondents being at Delhi and the fact that the registration certificate of the appellants was obtained at Delhi all other essential ingredients to have the certificate of registration are at Bangalore. Therefore, the substantial part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. By a careful perusal of the different provisions of PRB Act, Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 20(c) of CPC., it is crystal clear that substantial part of the cause of action has occurred within the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the writ petition was maintainable within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. - 31. Coming to the contention urged by respondents that having filed the suit within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court whether the appellants were justified in withdrawing the same and approaching this Court, it has to be stated that the petitioner being master of his case, has aright to approach the Court of his choice in case if the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of more than one Court. Apparently in this case though substantial cause of action has arisen at Bangalore, part of cause of action has also arisen at Delhi. Just because the petitioners choose the Court where substantial cause of action has arisen, they cannot be accused of forum shopping. A litigant can choose any Court as long as cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of that Court. One has to look to the contentions of the parties as well. Therefore, since the situs of the appellants/petitioners is within the jurisdiction of this Court, it would be convenient for them to prosecute the litigation and when this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter, it is not open to the respondent to accuse the appellants/petitioners of abusing the process. 32. In the case of Nasiruddin Vs. State Tansport Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 2 SCC 671 it was held if part of cause of action arises in Oudh, it is open to the litigant who is dominus litus to opt his forum convenience. 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 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 jurisdiction of the Court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. 33.As regards withdrawal of the petition filed at New Delhi and approaching this Court in a fresh petition we may usefully refer to the decision in the case of Bhimanagouda Vs. Sangappa Irappa Patil & Ors., AIR 1960 Mys 178, wherein their Lordships have held that when the suit is withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action, the suit is deemed as not having been filed by the plaintiff at all. Similar view was taken in the case of Sukumar Banerjee Vs. Dilip Kumar, AIR 1982 Cal 17 wherein it is held that when the Court grants leave to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, the withdrawn suit has no existence in the eye of law. 34. In view of the above discussion and reasoning, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. 37. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the High Court of Karnataka has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.