JUDGMENT Hon’ble Irshad Ali, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and perused the material brought on record. 2. The petitioner is a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force and is working at present at 121 Battalion, Kathua (Heera Nagar) in the State of Jammu and by means of the present writ petition, he is claiming the following relieves : “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner under 10% unqualified promotion for Gallantry Award Winners under Rule 70 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1995, from due date with all consequential service benefits. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the opposite party No. 1 to take appropriate decision so far in respect of regarding out of turn promotion in the nature of the petitioner, which is referred by D.I.G. (Establishment), Directorate Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi, vide letter dated 17.12.2008. (iii) Issue any other order or direction which is Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iv) Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned Additional Solicitor General raised preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court and he relied upon a Full Bench judgment in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others, 2004(4) ESC 2313 (All)(FB). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village-Karaund, Post-Kauria (Bharawan), District-Hardoi, which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is maintainable and is liable to be entertained before this Hon’ble Court. 5. I have considered the submission of learned Additional Solicitor General on the point of maintainability of the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is maintainable and is liable to be entertained before this Hon’ble Court. 5. I have considered the submission of learned Additional Solicitor General on the point of maintainability of the writ petition. On perusal of the judgment referred by learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Indian Army while on duty at Kanchanpara, Calcutta in West Bengal, he was given a charge-sheet by Lieutenant Colonel Ganguli of 1841 Light Regiment, in which, the following charge was leveled against him under Section 64 (e) of the Army Act : “Obtaining for himself a gratification as motive for praying the enrollment of a person in that he, at Kanchanpara, on 3.1.1999, while working as a clerk in the branch recruiting office, Kanchanpara obtain a sum of Rs. 14,500/- (Rupees fourteen thousands and five hundred only) by demanding from Sri Babu Mandal son of Sri Niyta Gopal Mandal, a gratification as a motive for procuring enrollment of the said individual.” 6. The Seven Judges Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532 , in paragraph 13 of the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court observed : “Now it is clear that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Article 226 does not depend upon the residence or location of the person applying to it for relief; it depends only on the person or authority x against whom a writ is sought being within those territories. It seems to us, therefore, that it is not permissible to read in Article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court. That jurisdiction depends on the person or authority passing the order being within those territories and the residence or location of the person affected can have no relevance on the question of the High Court’s jurisdiction. Thus, if a person residing or located in Bombay, for example, is aggrieved by an order passed by an authority located, say, in Calcutta, the forum he has to seek relief is not the Mumbai High Court though the order may affect him in Bombay but the Calcutta High Court where the authority passing the order is located. Thus, if a person residing or located in Bombay, for example, is aggrieved by an order passed by an authority located, say, in Calcutta, the forum he has to seek relief is not the Mumbai High Court though the order may affect him in Bombay but the Calcutta High Court where the authority passing the order is located. It would, therefore, in our opinion be wrong to introduce in Article 226 the concept of the place where the order passed has effect in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court which can give relief under Article 226.” 7. Further Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207 , and in Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Subha Rao, AIR 1953 SC 210 , have held that a writ cannot be issued beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Adani Exports Ltd. and another, AIR 2002 SC 126 , has held that the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the Court to decide a dispute, which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. Each and every fact pleaded by the party in its application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court’s territorial jurisdiction unless those facts, pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned.The Full Bench taking into consideration the other judgments of the Apex Court finally decided the case holding that no cause of action has arisen in Uttar Pradesh Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable at Allahabad High Court. 9. In case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others, 2004(4) ESC 2313 (All)(FB), the Full Bench of this Court in paras-39, 40 and 41 has observed as under : “39. 9. In case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others, 2004(4) ESC 2313 (All)(FB), the Full Bench of this Court in paras-39, 40 and 41 has observed as under : “39. Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it is a statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law. 40. For the reasons given above we are of the opinion that the Chief of Army Staff can only be sued either at Delhi where he is located or at a place where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 41. We may mention that a “cause of action” is the bundle of facts which, taken with the law applicable., gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. However, it must include some act done by the defendant, since in the absence of an act, no cause of action can possibly occur.” 10. In case of State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Swaika Properties, (1985) 3 SCC 217 , the Apex Court in para-8 has held as under : “8...... The mere service of notice under Section 52 (2) of the Act on the respondents at their registered office at 18-B, Brabourne Road, Calcutta i.e. within the territorial limits of the State of West Bengal, could not give rise to a cause of action within that territory unless the service of such notice was an integral part of the cause of action. The entire cause of action culminating in the acquisition of land under Section 52 (1) of the Act arose within the State of Rajasthan i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench.....”. 11. In case of Uttar Pradesh Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P., (1995) 4 SCC 738 , the Apex Court in para-14 has held as under : “14. .....The territorial jurisdiction of a Court and the “cause of action” are interlinked. To decide the question of territorial jurisdiction it is necessary to find out the place where the “cause of action” arose. .....The territorial jurisdiction of a Court and the “cause of action” are interlinked. To decide the question of territorial jurisdiction it is necessary to find out the place where the “cause of action” arose. We, with respect, reiterate that the law laid down by a four-Judge Bench of this Court in Nasiruddin case holds good even today despite the incorporation of an Explanation to Section 141 to the Code of Civil Procedure.” 12. In case of Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 640 , the Apex Court in para-38 has held as under : “38. “Cause of action” is a phenomenon well understood in legal parlance. Mohapatra, J. has well delineated the import of the said expression by referring to the celebrated lexicographies. The collocation of the words “cause of action, wholly or in part, arises” seems to have been lifted from Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which section also deals with the jurisdictional aspect of the Courts. As per that section the suit could be instituted in a Court within the legal limits of whose jurisdiction the “cause of action wholly or part arises.......” 13. In case of Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2007) 6 SCC 769 , the Apex Court in paras-17 & 41 has held as under : “17. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also Clause (2) of Article 226 thereof, the High Court would exercise its discretionary jurisdiction as also power to issue writ of certiorari in respect of the orders passed by the Subordinate Courts within its territorial jurisdiction or if any cause of action has arisen therewith but the same tests cannot be applied when the appellate Court exercises a jurisdiction over Tribunal situated in more than one State. In such a situation, in our opinion, the High Court situated in the State where the first Court is located should be considered to be the appropriate appellate authority. Code of Civil Procedure did not contemplate such a situation. It provides for jurisdiction of each Court. Even a District Judge must exercise its jurisdiction only within the territorial limits of a State. Code of Civil Procedure did not contemplate such a situation. It provides for jurisdiction of each Court. Even a District Judge must exercise its jurisdiction only within the territorial limits of a State. It is inconceivable under the Code of Civil Procedure that the jurisdiction of the District Court would be exercisable beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the District, save and except in such matters where the law specifically provides therefor. 41. Keeping in view the expression “cause of action” used in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction thereof accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter though the doctrine of forum convenience may also have to be considered.” 14. In case of Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335 , the Apex Court in para-37 has held as under : “37...... It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a “part of cause of action”, nothing less than that.” 15. In case of Rajendra Chingravelu v. R.K. Mishra, (2010) 1 SCC 457 , the Apex Court in para-9 has held as under : “9........The High Court did not examine whether any part of cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh. Clause (2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to territories within which the cause of action arises wholly or in part, will have jurisdiction. This would mean that even if a small fraction of cause of action (that bundle of fact which gives a petitioner, a right to suit) accrued within the territories of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court of the State will have the jurisdiction.” 16. In case of Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 329 , the Apex Court in para-16 has held as under : “16........In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court’s jurisdiction.” 17. In case of Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 329 , the Apex Court in para-16 has held as under : “16........In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court’s jurisdiction.” 17. In case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2204) 6 SCC 254, the Apex Court in paras-29 and 30 has held as under : “29. .In view of clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India now if a part of cause of action arises outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, it would have jurisdiction to issue a writ. The decision in Khajoor Singh (supra) has, thus, no application. 30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience.” 18. In view of the above, the petitioner has been posted at Jammu, thus, on the basis of permanent resident of District Hardoi, he cannot maintain this writ petition before this Court. 19. On bare perusal of the prayer made in the writ petition, it is apparent that he is claiming 10% unqualified promotion for Gallantry Award Winners under Rule 70 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1995, which is pending consideration before D.I.G. (Establishment), Directorate Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi, thus, no cause of action has arisen in the State of Uttar Pradesh to maintain this writ petition before this Court. 20. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction with liberty to the petitioner to file this writ petition before appropriate Court.