JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. REPORTABLE 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners-Institutions challenging the orders dated 6.2.2019, amended order dated 27.5.2019 issued by the State Government and public notice dated 20.5.2019 issued by the National Council of Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as "NCTE"). 2. The grievance of the petitioners-Institutions is also in respect of not providing seats to the petitioners-Colleges for imparting integrated teachers educational program (for short as "ITEP") for session 2020-21. 3. The petitioners have pleaded that the State Government while issuing the orders dated 6.2.2019 and 27.5.2019 has sanctioned ITEP in 64 Tehsils only. The non-inclusion of other Tehsils apart from 64 Tehsils is, said to be discriminatory and arbitrary. 4. The petitioners have submitted in their petitions that their colleges are affiliated to the Universities and, as such, the State Government cannot make distinction while imparting the course of ITEP. The facts which have come on record reveal that the Institutions in SBCW Pet. Nos. 11208/19 (Harsh Shiksha Evam Seva Sansthan Vs. State of Raj. and Ors.) is situated in Tehsil Galiyakot, Distt. Dungarpur; Institution of petitioner in SBCW Pet. No. 11214/19 (The Gurukul Institute of Education Vs. State of Raj. and Ors.) is situated in Bori, Distt. Dungarpur. The institution of petitioner in SBCW Pet. No. 11223/2019 (Wagon Infotesh Chiksha Samiti Vs. State of Raj. and Ors.) is situated in Dahod Road, Banswara whereas the institution of petitioner in SBCW Pet. Nos. 11282/19 (Aravali Mahavidhyalaya and Anr. vs. State of Raj. and Ors.) is situated in Thikariya, Banswara. 5. This court while hearing the counsel on 8.7.2019, asked the counsel for the petitioner to answer the quarry of this court with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench to entertain the petitions as the petitioners' colleges are situated in Dungarpur and Banswara. 6. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mahendra Shah, submitted that the writ petitions by the petitioners-Institutions have been filed at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur as they are aggrieved by the orders dated 6.2.2019 and 27.5.2019 issued by the Department of Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan. Counsel also submitted that the impugned notice issued by the NCTE dated 20.5.2019 has been issued from New-Delhi and the public notice has been issued for accepting the online applications from 64 Tehsils only as ear marked by the Government of Rajasthan. 7. Counsel also submitted that the impugned notice issued by the NCTE dated 20.5.2019 has been issued from New-Delhi and the public notice has been issued for accepting the online applications from 64 Tehsils only as ear marked by the Government of Rajasthan. 7. Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that since the cause of action has arisen to the petitioner within Jaipur jurisdiction and, as such, the petitions are maintainable before this court. Counsel further submitted that the order of the State Government dated 6.2.2019 where the policy for grant of NOC/Recognition for new teachers Education Colleges is declared, same order being issued from Jaipur and restricting it to only 64 tehsils, is the cause of action, which has given rise to file the present writ petitions. 8. Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in past also, this court has been entertaining the writ petitions and only on account of territorial jurisdiction, the petitioners may not be non-suited. Counsel further submitted that the State Government, if takes a decision which affects the rights of the present petitioners and even if they are having their educational Institutions/Colleges in Dungarpur and Banswara, the petitioners are well within their right to assail the orders of the State Government as whole part of cause of action has arisen to the petitioners to assail the said action of the State Government. Counsel further submitted that even the powers given to this court under Art. 226(2) of the Constitution of India can be exercised in a given case in relation to those territories wherein seat of such authority or Government is not within the territories of this court. Counsel also submitted that if the cause of action as a whole or in part arises for exercise of such power by this Bench, the petitioners cannot be thrown out only on the ground of Jaipur Bench having no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions because of the colleges of petitioners-Institutions are situated in those districts where the territorial jurisdiction has been conferred in Principal Seat at Jodhpur. 9. Mr. Shah, counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment reported in 2006 (6) SCC 207 - Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India and Anr. 9. Mr. Shah, counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment reported in 2006 (6) SCC 207 - Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India and Anr. The counsel on the strength of said judgment has submitted that the High Court can exercise the power to issue direction, order or writs not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but for any other purpose also if cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the territories of any High Court irrespective of the fact that seat of government or authority or the residence of person against whom the direction, order or writ have been issued, is not within the territories of that High Court. 10. The counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment passed by Division Bench of this court reported in RLR 1992 (1) 13 - (Virendra Dangi Vs. Union of India and Ors.). The counsel on the strength of said judgment has submitted that the Division Bench has held that if a part of cause of action arises in any of the districts within the jurisdiction of Principal Seat at Jodhpur or within the jurisdiction of permanent Bench at Jaipur, the Principal Seat at Jodhpur and the permanent Bench at Jaipur will have jurisdiction in respect of writ cases and ultimately it will be for the court to decide whether the case arises within the revenue district which is within the district (sic jurisdiction) of Principal seat at Jodhpur or within the jurisdiction of permanent Bench at Jaipur. 11. I have heard counsel for the petitioners. 12. This court finds that the orders which are challenged by the petitioners i.e. orders dated 6.2.2019 and 27.5.2019 are issued by the department of Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan and by these orders, state Government has declared their policy of setting up teachers education colleges for session 2020-21 and course of integrated teachers education program is to be confined to 64 tehsils. This court finds that if these orders have been issued from Jaipur by the Government of Rajasthan, department of Higher Education, it cannot be inferred or gathered that any part of cause of action has arisen to the petitioner in Jaipur. The seat of Government at Jaipur itself while issuing order, cannot be the part of cause of action. This court finds that if these orders have been issued from Jaipur by the Government of Rajasthan, department of Higher Education, it cannot be inferred or gathered that any part of cause of action has arisen to the petitioner in Jaipur. The seat of Government at Jaipur itself while issuing order, cannot be the part of cause of action. This court finds that if the State Government has taken any decision and accordingly order is issued from Jaipur as the Secretariat is situated at Jaipur, the person feeling aggrieved or institutions which are being run in district Banswara or Dungarpur, cannot claim that the cause of action had arisen to them in Jaipur jurisdiction and, as such, they can file petition at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. This court is afraid to accept the submission of counsel for the petitioners that the policy of the State Government, and order issued thereon, infact forms the whole cause of action for availing the remedy for filing the writ at Jaipur. 13. The submission of counsel for the petitioners that even if part of cause of action arises in Jaipur Bench, the petitions should be entertained at permanent Bench at Jaipur, this court finds that the order, if issued from particular place or seat itself, cannot be a ground or bundle of facts, which will form cause of action. The petitioners are well within their right to assail the action of the State Government and the remedy which is available to them can always be made use of, but filing of petitions at Jaipur only on account of orders being issued, in humble opinion of this court, same cannot be part of cause of action for availing the remedy of filing the writs at Jaipur. 14. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (supra), this court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the power of High Court in respect of their jurisdiction conferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court, has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Art. 226. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court, has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Art. 226. The Apex Court has further held that the High Court is also required to first determine whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the writ jurisdiction or not. This court finds that the Apex Court has interpreted Art. 226 and has also considered the scope of defining the words "cause of action". The Apex Court has elaborately dealt in para Nos. 11, 12 & 13 of the Judgment where "cause of action" has been explained in detail and it has been held that a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases of suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. 15. This court finds that in the present case, only on the basis of orders being issued from Jaipur, it cannot be inferred that cause of action has arisen in part or whole in Jaipur and, as such, petitions can be entertained. 16. Relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this court by counsel for the petitioner, this court finds that the Division Bench has also reiterated the position for entertaining the writ petition, if part of cause of action arises in any of the districts within the jurisdiction of Principal Seat at Jodhpur or within the jurisdiction of permanent Bench at Jaipur. The facts of present case clearly reveal that the petitioners who have their colleges in districts Banswara and Dungarpur are feeling aggrieved because of orders issued by the State Government and only on that basis, they have filed the present writ petitions, this court finds that Jaipur Bench-this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain these petitions and accordingly the writ petitions are not entertained. 17. Accordingly, in view of above, writ petitions are dismissed.