JUDGMENT : Saurabh Lavania, J. 1. Sri Amol Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Nishant Shukla, learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri Vijayant, learned counsel for the National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation of India (in short "NAFED") appeared before this Court through video conferencing. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner/Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. (in short "Supplier") supplied Dhaincha Seeds to opposite party No. 4/Bihar State Beej Nigam Limited, Bihar through its Managing Director (in short "Nigam/Institution"). With regard to supply of Dhaincha Seeds, the Nigam requested NAFED. The NAFED in terms of the agreement dated 10.01.2011 directed the petitioner/Gold Star Green Seeds Pvt. Ltd. to supply Dhaincha Seeds to the Nigam vide letter dated 20.04.2011. The total amount of the Seeds supplied by the petitioner on the basis of the supply order issued by the NAFED in terms of the agreement dated 10.01.2011 amounts to Rs. 10,37,59,457.20. In terms of the agreement dated 10.01.2011, the Nigam was/is under obligation to pay the amount related to Dhaincha Seeds supplied to the NAFED and thereafter the NAFED was/is under obligation to pay the amount of Seeds supplied to the petitioner. Out of Rs. 10,37,59,457.20, the petitioner received Rs. 7,44,73,352.00 and the amount still due is Rs. 2,92,86,105/-. The amount due is undisputed and in this regard learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on para 14 to 18 to the writ petition as also Annexure Nos. 4 to 8 to the writ petition. The amount due i.e. Rs. 2,92,86,105/-has not been paid till date and accordingly the petitioner has been compelled to file the present writ petition for the reliefs sought. Main reliefs sought are as under:- "1. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties, more particularly opposite party no. 2 & 3, to pay the admitted amount i.e. 2,92,86,105/- along with admissible interest. 2. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to decide the representations dated 19.12.2019 pending before them." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in similar facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition No, 8117 (MB) of 2015 filed by the petitioner against NAFED and U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam was entertained and allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 14.02.2020. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in similar facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition No, 8117 (MB) of 2015 filed by the petitioner against NAFED and U.P. Beej Vikas Nigam was entertained and allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 14.02.2020. 4. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, NAFED be directed to pay the admitted amount amounting to Rs. 2,92,86,105/- to the petitioner. 5. After taking into account the contents of the writ petition and documents annexed therewith particularly para 3, 7 to 11 and 13 & 14 as well as the terms of agreement dated 10.01.2011, quoted hereunder, we raised the issue/point related to the maintainability of the writ petition within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. "Relevant paras of the writ petition. 3. That the petitioner is seeking for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to release the amount/pay the outstanding to the tune of Rs. 2,92,86,105/-with respect to the supply of Dhaincha Seeds to opposite party no. 4 through opposite party no.2 & 3. 7. That accordingly an agreement was entered into by & between the petitioner and the opposite parties no.2 & 3 by means of which amongst others it was agreed that the petitioner will participate in the tenders/orders floated by various institutes for supply of the seeds etc. on behalf of NAFED, the petitioner would quote the rates in consultation with NAFED. The copy of the agreement dated 10.01.2011 entered into by & between the parties is annexed herewith this petition as ANNEXURE 1. 8. That vide letter dated 19.04.2011 the opposite party no.4 requested for the Dhaincha Seeds from the opposite party no.2 & 3. The opposite party no.2 & 3 through their letter dated 20.04.2011 directed the petitioner to supply Dhaincha Seeds to opposite party no.4. The copy of the letter dated 20.04.2011 is annexed herewith this petition as ANNEXURE-2. 9. That opposite party no.4 used to issue supply orders to the NAFED and thereafter the NAFED used to direct the petitioner to supply with the seeds to the opposite party no.4 on behalf of the NAFED in furtherance of the aforesaid agreement. 10. That meanwhile the opposite party no.2 requested the opposite party no. 4 to release the payment however, no heed was paid by the opposite party no.4. 11. 10. That meanwhile the opposite party no.2 requested the opposite party no. 4 to release the payment however, no heed was paid by the opposite party no.4. 11. That time & again the petitioner was asked to supply Dhaincha Seeds to opposite party no. 4 by the opposite party no.2 & 3 in furtherance to the aforesaid agreement and the petitioner as per the terms agreed supplied a total quantity of 30092.65 quintals of the said seed to the opposite party no.4, as per the supply order issued by the opposite party no.2 & 3 from time to time. 13. That the total amount of the seeds which were supplied by the petitioner to the opposite party no. 4 on the basis of the supply order issued by opposite party no.2 & 3 amounted to Rs. 10,37,59,457.20. (at the rate of Rs. 3448/-per quintal for 30092.65 quintals) was due. The opposite party no.2 & 3 served a letter dated 22.12.2011 upon the opposite party no.4 requesting therein that the total amount due be released. 14. That thereafter the total amount of the seeds which were supplied by the petitioner to the opposite party no.4 on the basis of the supply order issued by opposite party no.2 & 3 amounted to Rs. 10,37,59,457.20. (at the rate of Rs. 3448/-per quintal for 30092.65 quintals) against which a total sum of Rs. 7,44,73,352.00 was paid to the petitioner in the following matter: Date of Payment/Nature of Payment Amount paid 27.02.2012 Rs.5,05,27,940 31.08.2012 Rs.1,23,09,927 11.02.2013 Rs.70,50,918 25.050.2019 Rs.23,50,366 3% Service charge deducted by the NAFED Rs.22,34,201 Total Rs.7,44,73,352 "Agreement dated 10.01.2011. This deed of agreement made at Lucknow signed on this day of 10-01-2011 and effective from Gold Star Green Seeds (P) Ltd. Kasganj between NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LIMITED, Lucknow A National Level cooperative Society registered under state cooperative societies Act. This deed of agreement made at Lucknow signed on this day of 10-01-2011 and effective from Gold Star Green Seeds (P) Ltd. Kasganj between NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LIMITED, Lucknow A National Level cooperative Society registered under state cooperative societies Act. 1984, having its registered office at Nafed House, Ashram Chowk, Sidhartha Enclave, New Delhi 110014 represented by (BRANCH MANAGER) Hereinafter referred to as NAFED which expression shall wherever the context so admits, mean and includes its successor or successors in office and assigns of the one part and M/s. Gold Star Green Seeds (P) Ltd. Kasganj having its registered office at Kasganj and represented by Shri Subhash Mahewari S/o Shri Ghanshyam Das Hereinafter called the supplier, which expression shall wherever the context so admits, mean and include its legal heirs, representatives, executors, administrators, successors in offices and assigns on the second part. Whereas Nafed is engaged in the supplies of certified / truthfully labeled / hybrid seed of various crops, viz. cereals, fodder, green manure, oil seeds, pulses etc. planting material/saplings to institutions all over India, directly/indirectly. In order to fulfill the objective Nafed is desirous to have back to back arrangements with suppliers of the above items who may secure orders or participate in the tenders on behalf of Nafed and are in a position to arrange the supplies as per the following terms and conditions: 1. Supplier will participate in the tenders/ orders floated by various institutions for the supply of truthfully labeled, certified and hybrid seeds and planting material / saplings of various agricultural crops viz. cereals, fodder, green manure, oil seeds, pulses, vegetable, flowers and horticulture planting material and agro inputs and on behalf of Nafed the supplier would quote the rates to various institutions in consultation with Nafed. In case rates quoted by supplier are accepted by the Institutions the supplier will arrange purchase order in favour of Nafed and after inspection of the stock by Nafed representative / surveyor which should be strictly as per specification and B.O.S., obtain DC from Nafed for supply of stock. In case rates quoted by supplier are accepted by the Institutions the supplier will arrange purchase order in favour of Nafed and after inspection of the stock by Nafed representative / surveyor which should be strictly as per specification and B.O.S., obtain DC from Nafed for supply of stock. The supplier will obtain the receipt of the stock form the institutions, indicating therein the quantity/ quality of stock/ material supplied, as per tender/ purchase order and submit, the same to Nafed for record and responsibility of the supplier that goods/commodity so supplier are passed by the authorities of the institutions and a certificate to this effect to Nafed that goods commodity Supplier have been accepted as per quality and quantity norms and terms of supply order required by the institution. 2. After arranging delivery of the goods as per terms and conditions of the tenders/orders and arranging delivery of bills of Nafed to institutions, Supplier will take all necessary steps to receive payment in favour of Nafed the institutions within stipulated period. 3. After receiving the payment from the institution, Nafed will release the amount to supplier, after deducting service charges for Nafed which shall vary from item to item (specified herein after) and deductions imposed by the institution on account of shortage, quality cut, late delivery charges, if any or any other expenses. 4. After the supplier gets empanelled with Nafed BRANCH and required agreement with Nafed, is executed, the supplier will be required to separately give a letter of intent to the concerned branch of Nafed, through which it wishes to make supply and to which it wants raise bills in a particular state. A branch of Nafed will generally accept such letters of intern only for the states, in which they are normally operating and they will entertain proposals of other state, only if the local branch of Nafed for that state is not willing or koen to enter into this business. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPPLER 1. The supplier will provide the interest free performance guarantee of Rs. 5.00 lacs by demand draft in favour of NAFED which would remain with NAFED till the validity of the agreement, depending upon the performance of the supplier in getting and servicing the orders of seed supply on behalf of Nafed. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPPLER 1. The supplier will provide the interest free performance guarantee of Rs. 5.00 lacs by demand draft in favour of NAFED which would remain with NAFED till the validity of the agreement, depending upon the performance of the supplier in getting and servicing the orders of seed supply on behalf of Nafed. The performance guarantee may be forfeited by NAFED at any point of time without prior intimation to the suppler to recover any outstanding dues or in case at any point of time the performance of the supplier is not found to be satisfactory. 2. The supplier will deposit tender money and security amount with Nafed if any, required by the institution to be deposited before getting tender/order by the Nafed. Nafed will in tum, deposit the required security amount with the institutions (Nafed has right invoke the performance guarantee to make good the losses, if any, suffered on account of the acts of a omission or commission on the part of the suppliers and breach in the terms of present agreement). 3. The supplier shall undertake supply of seed on behalf of NAFED as per the prescribed quality and guidelines of the buyer and shall indemnify NAFED against all losses that be caused on account of action or inaction on part of the supplier. The associate shall be fully responsible to ensure supply of seeds as per the prescribed quality. Nafed will not entertain any complaint from any institution about the quantity, quality of the material with the institution and settle the same in the best interest of both the organization. In case of any defected goods supplier, the supplier will be solely responsible for the same and will also be responsible for meeting the entire legal expenses to be incurred, by Nafed in case of any legal compensation/litigation for any complaint regarding defected/impure goods should be resolved within 6 months time from the date of complaint. 4. If there is any delay in delivering the ordered goods as per the specification of the purchase order or any risks emanating due to non delivery of goods in time, supplier will be solely responsible for, same and shall bear all consequences on account of the same. 5. The supplier will not work simultaneously, with any other empanelled company/supplier, for supply of seeds of same crop variety to the same department in a state. 5. The supplier will not work simultaneously, with any other empanelled company/supplier, for supply of seeds of same crop variety to the same department in a state. Other Terms and Condition 1. Nafed and the supplier have agreed the and conditions for the supply of particular item/ items on FOR/FOL basis, i.e, inclusive of transport cost and all other taxes. expenses duties etc. upto godown of the indenting institution as the case may be. 2. The supplier will certify that the quality and the quantity of the good to be supplied are as per the terms and conditions of the tender/PO. If possible, Nafed's representative will accompany the goods to deliver to the purchaser to ensure that the stock has really landed the godown of the institution. Nafed may appoint a surveyor, if required, for supervision of supplies. The two certificates i.e. from surveyor about the quality/quantity and Nafed's representative about actual stock delivered at the party's godown are important document for processing of the payment to the supplier. The expenses incurred towards surveyor's fee will be bome by the supplier alone. 3. After receipt of the payment form the buyer regarding goods supplied by the supplier. Nafed will release the payment to the supplier after deducting the pre-decided service charges and deduction if any made by the institution on account of quality, shortage and late delivery 3. or any other charges etc. 4. Supplier will ensure that all goods supplied to various institution are in conformity to the specification required by the buyer. 5. Supplier will inform Nafed in writing in advance before participating in any tender of 5. behalf of NAFED. 6. Nafed reserves the right to terminate the contract without assigning any reason within the validity period of agreement by giving on month notice and has aright to appoint one or more supplier/agent for the supply of goods to the same institutions. 7. In case stocks and quality indicated in the purchase order are available with Nafed and supply rates indicated in purchase order are higher that the sale rates of Nafed the supplier shall allow Nafed to supply such items directly to the institution at agreed rates without any intervention of the supplier. In such transaction, supplier is not entitled to any financial benefits. 8. In such transaction, supplier is not entitled to any financial benefits. 8. Service Charges :- The service charges to NAFED shall be 3% for seed and 5% for saplings and planting material of the order value of each supply order. 9. In such back-to-back deliveries of stock Nafed will not invest its own money in any manner whatsoever. It is the responsibility of the suppliers to invest their own funds. 10. In case the performance of the supplier is not found to be satisfactory, the empanelment of the suppler may be cancelled by giving one month's notice and the agreement may be terminated accordingly. The performance guarantee may be forfeited by NAFED at any point of time without prior intimation to the supplier to recover any outstanding dues or in case at any point of time the performance of the company is not found to be satisfactory. 11. The guidelines framed by NAFED for supply of seeds form inherent part of this agreement. 12. ARBITRATION :- In case any dispute arises between Nafed and supplier in respect of the supplies of different items on the interpretation and any clause of the present agreement on any subject touching the present agreement, same shall be referred to the Managing Director of Nafed, who is entitled to be the sole arbitrator appoint any official of Nafed at act as arbitrator. The decision of the Managing Director of Nafed or any officer authorized be the Managing Director to act as an arbitrator would be final and binding on both the parties. All disputes arising out of this agreement shall be subject to jurisdiction of Delhi courts only. The party shall be governed by the arbitration and conciliation Act. 1996. The venue of the arbitration will be Delhi. 13. This agreement is valid for the period of 3 years and can be extended on mutual consent for a period of one year on each occasion. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have set and subscribed their respective hand and seal on this agreement on the day, month, year first as mentioned in the presence of the following witness: FOR & ON BEHALF OF SUPPLIER FOR ON BEHALF OF NAFED" 6. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have set and subscribed their respective hand and seal on this agreement on the day, month, year first as mentioned in the presence of the following witness: FOR & ON BEHALF OF SUPPLIER FOR ON BEHALF OF NAFED" 6. It is relevant to clarify here that we raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Court as in fact the supply of Dhaincha Seeds was made to the Nigam/Institution and as per the terms of the agreement, the Nigam/Institution is under obligation to pay the amount of seeds supplied by the petitioner to the NAFED and on receipt of the amount from Nigam/Institution, the NAFED is under obligation to make the payment to the petitioner for the Seeds supplied by the petitioner to the Nigam/Institution situated at State of Bihar. 7. With regard to the issue/point of maintainability of the writ petition at Lucknow, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that agreement between NAFED and petitioner was executed at Lucknow and in terms of the agreement, the Seeds were supplied to the Nigam/Institution and on account of non-payment of amount due, the right to sue accrued to the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition at Lucknow is entertainable and maintainable. 8. We took note of arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as pleadings and documents on record. 9. It appears from the record that the agreement dated 10.01.2011 was executed at Lucknow between the petitioner and NAFED and the Dhaincha Seeds were supplied to the opposite party No. 4/Bihar State Beej Nigam Limited, Bihar (Nigam/Institution). 10. From the pleadings and documents on record, which include the agreement dated 10.01.2011 particularly the term No. 2, 3 and the term No. 3 under the head "Other Terms and Conditions", it transpires that right to get the payment of Seeds supplied to Bihar State Beej Nigam, Bihar-opposite party No. 4 in fact has been infringed by the opposite party No. 4-Bihar State Beej Nigam, Bihar, as in absence of making the payment by Nigam/Institution to NAFED, the petitioner would not get the amount of Seeds supplied to Nigam/Institution from NAFED. 11. 11. From the terms of the agreement dated 10.01.2011 particularly term No. 1 and 4, term No. 5 under the head of "Responsibility of Supplier" and pleadings as well as documents on record, it transpires that all the transaction with regard to supply of Seeds took place within territories of State of Bihar. 12. In addition, if there exists a dispute between the petitioner and NAFED, then in view of term No. 12 under the head "Other Terms and Conditions" of the agreement dated 10.01.2011, the same has to be decided through Arbitration and the Court at Delhi alone can entertain any petition with regard to the dispute under the agreement. 13. Taking into account the entire facts of the case, it further transpires that main dispute is between petitioner/supplier and Nigam/Institution, which is situated in the State of Bihar. 14. In Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India and another, (2006) 6 SCC 207 , it was observed that writ petitioners have to establish that a legal right claimed by them has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof. 15. In the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 329 , in para 16 the Apex Court observed as under:- "16. Regard being had to the discussion made hereinabove, there cannot be any doubt that the question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limit of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 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." 16. In Ex. No. 1387-5234-M Sepoy/D.B./M.T., Chabi Nath Rai vs. Union of India & others, 1997 (1) UPLBEC 236 , a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the question whether the cause of action had arisen at Allahabad on communication of the decision on the representation of the appellant therein, had observed that the 'right to action' and 'cause of action' are two different things. This distinction was earlier considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Daya Shankar Bharadwaj v. Chief of Air Staff, New Delhi and others, AIR 1988 Allahabad 36, wherein it was observed:- "A right of action arises as soon as there is an invasion of right. But 'cause of action' and 'right of action'...... are not synonymous or interchangeable. A right of action is the right to enforce a cause of action (Americal Jurispurdence 2nd Edition Vol.1.) A person residing any where in the country being aggrieved by an order of Government Central or State or authority or person may have a right to action at law but it can be forced or the jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked of that High Court only within whose territorial limits the cause of action wholly or in part arises. The cause of action arises by action of the Government or authority and not by residence of the person aggrieved." 17. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petition before this Court, we have also took note of the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 01.05.2020 passed in Writ-A No. 2071 of 2017 and other connected matters. The relevant paras are quoted hereunder:- "129. Article 226 confers upon the High Court power to issue writs to any person or authority or any Government, within its territorial jurisdiction, and with the insertion of clause (1-A) subsequently renumbered as clause (2), the said power may also be exercised in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part has arisen, notwithstanding that seat of such Government or authority or residence of such person is not within those territories. The use of non-obstante clause under clause (2) clearly manifests that residence of the party is not a relevant consideration for determining the territorial jurisdiction under Article 226. 130. The relief sought by the writ petitioner, though would be one of the relevant criteria for consideration, but not the sole consideration in this regard. The maintainability, or otherwise, of a writ petition in a High Court would depend on whether the cause of action for filing the same arose, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. The maintainability, or otherwise, of a writ petition in a High Court would depend on whether the cause of action for filing the same arose, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. The High Court would have jurisdiction if any part of cause of action arises within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction even though the seat of the Government or authority or residence of person against whom direction, order or writ is sought to be issued is not within the said territory. 131. The expression "cause of action" has been understood to be a bundle of facts which are required to be proved. The entire bundle of facts pleaded, however, need not constitute a cause of action as what would be necessary to be proved would be the material facts on the basis of which a writ petition can be allowed. It may also be considered as a bundle of essential facts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed. The Court would be required to take into consideration all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. The facts as pleaded in the petition may be considered, truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. 132. In legal parlance the expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court or a Tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain the remedy in Court from another person. 133. The meaning of the expression "cause of action" as distinct from "right of action", as evolved in terms of the precedents, would go to show that a right of action is a remedial right affording a redress for the infringement of a legal right and a right of action arises as soon as there is an invasion of rights whereas a cause of action would refer to the set of operative facts giving rise to such right of action. A person residing anywhere in the country being aggrieved by an order of the Government (Central or State), or authority or person may have a right of action at law but the same can be enforced by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of only that High Court, within whose territorial limits the cause of action wholly or in part arises. 134. The "right of action" being the right to commence and maintain an action is therefore distinguishable from "cause of action" in that the former is a remedial right while the latter would comprise the operative facts giving rise to such remedial right. The former would be a matter of right and would depend upon the substantive law whereas the latter would be governed by the law of procedure. 135. It is, therefore, seen that a "cause of action" is the fact or corroboration of facts which affords a party right to judicial interference on his behalf. The "cause of action" would be seen to comprise: (i) the plaintiff's primary right and the defendant's corresponding primary duty; and (ii) the delict or wrongful act or omission of the defendant, by which the primary right and duty have been violated. The term "right of action" is the right to commence and maintain action or in other words the right to enforce a cause of action. In the law of pleadings, "right of action" can be distinguished from "cause of action" in that the former is a remedial right while the latter would comprise the operative facts giving rise to such remedial right. The former would be a matter of right and depend on the substantive law while the latter would refer to the bundle of operative facts and would be governed by the law of procedure. 136. A right of action, may therefore, be said to have arisen upon the invasion of primary rights of the person residing anywhere in the country being aggrieved by an act or omission of the Government or authority or a person, but in order to enforce the same, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of only that High Court can be invoked, within whose territorial jurisdiction, on the basis of the bundle of facts, the cause of action can be said to have arisen wholly or in part. 137. 137. The question as to whether any particular facts constitute a cause of action or not has thus to be determined with reference to the facts of each case taking into consideration the substance of the matter rather than the form of action. The cause of action must be antecedent to the institution of the proceedings and before a petition can be entertained the petitioner would be required to demonstrate that one of the essential facts giving rise to the petition has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. 138. The powers to issue directions, orders or writs to any government, authority or person, may be exercised, as per terms of clause (2) of Article 226, by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, "wholly or in part", arises. This exercise of power, may be made notwithstanding that the seat of such government or authority or residence of such person is not within those territories. 139. In determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Court must, therefore, take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. The question of territorial jurisdiction thus must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition, the truth or otherwise, whereof being immaterial. 140. It may, however, be added as a caveat that if from the averments of the petition, as they are, no part of cause of action can be held to have arisen within the jurisdiction of a High Court, that High Court cannot assume territorial jurisdiction on the ground of residence of the petitioner or the like. 141. The expression "in part" has been held to be comprehensive and includes within its ambit even an infinitesimal fraction of cause of action. The expression "wholly or in part" used under clause (2) of Article 226 would therefore be referable entirely to the facts stated and the grounds set forth in the petition as the cause of action has no relation to the defence set up or the objection raised by the opposite party. 142. The expression "wholly or in part" used under clause (2) of Article 226 would therefore be referable entirely to the facts stated and the grounds set forth in the petition as the cause of action has no relation to the defence set up or the objection raised by the opposite party. 142. In order to invest the High Court with jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226, the transaction in question must be an integral part of the cause of action which must arise within its territorial jurisdiction, and would depend upon the facts of the case and the nature of the order impugned giving rise to the cause of action. 143. Notice may also be had to the fact that Article 226(1) begins with a non-obstante clause and in terms thereof 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, for the enforcement of any other rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. In terms of clause (2) of Article 226 the power conferred by clause (1) may be exercised by the High Court if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territory over which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. 144. A plain reading of the two clauses of Article 226 makes it clear that a High Court can exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. 145. Article 226(1) states that every High Court shall have power, throughout the territorial jurisdiction in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue directions, orders or writs to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories. 145. Article 226(1) states that every High Court shall have power, throughout the territorial jurisdiction in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue directions, orders or writs to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories. The powers so conferred under Article 226(1) have been further amplified with the insertion of clause (1-A), subsequently renumbered as clause (2), which provides that the powers conferred under clause (1) may also be exercised by the 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 powers, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. It provides an expansion to the normal rule of the respondent being sued at his place of residence by providing for exercise of jurisdiction "notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories". The non-obstante clause appearing under clause (2) thus enlarges the scope of jurisdiction which is primarily founded on the ground of cause of action. 146. We may therefore observe that Article 226(1) provides the source of power of the High Court as well as its territorial jurisdiction, whereas Article 226(2) amplifies the jurisdiction in relation to a cause of action by providing that the territorial jurisdiction would be exercisable in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, arises, wholly or in part. The cause of action would include material and integral facts and accrual of even a fraction of cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Court would provide territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the petition. 147. The territorial jurisdiction is to be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition and in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the Court would be required to take into consideration all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. The question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition is to be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise, whereof being immaterial. The question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition is to be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise, whereof being immaterial. The expression "cause of action", for the purpose of Article 226(2), is to be assigned the same meaning as under Section 20(c) CPC, and would mean a bundle of facts which are required to be proved. However, the entire bundle of facts pleaded, need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved are material facts on the basis of which a writ petition can be allowed. 148. In order to confer jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain a writ petition, the Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts 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 in the application may 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 are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts, which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case would not give rise to a "cause of action" so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned, and only those facts which give rise to a cause of action within a Court's territorial jurisdiction which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in that case, would be relevant for the purpose of invoking the Court's territorial jurisdiction, in the context of clause (2) of Article 226. 149. 149. The situs of the office of the respondent would not be relevant for the purposes of territorial jurisdiction in the context of Article 226(2), and a place where appellate or revisional order is passed may give rise to a part of the cause of action although the original order was made at a place outside the said area, and a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate, having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority may also be required to be set aside since the order of the original authority has merged with that of the appellate authority. In such cases, where a part of a cause of action arises within one or the other High Court, it would be for the litigant who is the dominus litis to have his forum conveniens. In such cases, it would not be wholly correct to say that the litigant chooses a particular Court; the choice, would be by reason of the jurisdiction of the Court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of that Court, and it would ultimately be upon the Court to find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Court is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action. 150. The doctrine of forum conveniens can be invoked only where the Court having jurisdiction decides not to exercise jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine forum conveniens. The invocation of doctrine of forum conveniens or forum non conveniens pre-supposes that the Court refusing to entertain a case on the basis of this doctrine, otherwise has jurisdiction. The argument of forum non conveniens cannot be raised in conjunction with the argument of lack of jurisdiction or forum non competens. The doctrine would be available only in a case where although the Court has jurisdiction but an adequate alternative forum is also available. 151. It may also be added that where a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of a Court, although it may have jurisdiction in the matter, but the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the Court to decide the matter on merits and in appropriate cases the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. 152. 152. The question whether or not cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court is to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings and in order to maintain the writ petition, the petitioner would be required to establish that the legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction causing him actual injury or threat thereof. 153. The accrual of cause of action having been made an additional ground to confer jurisdiction on the High Court after the Constitution (Fifteenth) Amendment, cause of action would be a relevant and germane factor for determination of the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 and a writ petition can be instituted in a High Court, within territorial jurisdiction of which, cause of action, in whole or in part, arises. 154. As to whether the facts averred by the writ petitioner, in a particular case, constitute a part of cause of action, has to be determined, on the basis of the test whether such facts constitute a material, essential or integral part of the lis between the parties; if it is, it forms a part of cause of action and if it is not, it does not form a part of cause of action. In determining the said question the substance of the matter and not the form thereof has to be considered, and even if a small fraction of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, it would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 155. In dealing with the cases relating to forces operating under special statutes, as is the case from which the present reference has arisen which pertains to the C.R.P.F. Act, we may take notice of the fact that these special statutes have an inbuilt provision for filing statutory appeals/revisions and representations. In the event the statutory appellate/revisional authority is located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and the petitioner has availed such remedies, the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked on the ground that the head office of the department is located within the jurisdiction of the Court. In the event the statutory appellate/revisional authority is located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and the petitioner has availed such remedies, the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked on the ground that the head office of the department is located within the jurisdiction of the Court. From a practical stand point also, this would be a more acceptable view for the reason that records of all the authorities whose jurisdiction might have been invoked during the pendency of departmental proceedings would be available at the offices of the authorities, which would be beyond the territorial limits of the Court. 156. The intent of the Parliament to grant territorial jurisdiction to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the entire or part of cause of action has arisen may be seen to have a nexus to the expeditious disposal of the proceedings. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 would, in our view, take within its ambit remedies which are effective and efficacious. 157. Keeping in mind the objective of expeditious disposal of the proceedings and the need to balance the convenience between the parties to the lis it may be appropriate for the Courts to determine the question of jurisdiction at the very threshold. The doctrine of forum conveniens may be considered while determining the issue of jurisdiction. The petitioner no doubt is the dominus litis but the rights in this regard would be subject to the law of jurisdiction. In a case where the necessary ingredients of the territorial jurisdiction are not satisfied the Court may not assume jurisdiction merely on the ground of the residence. The doctrine of forum conveniens and forum non conveniens would be a relevant factor for the Court to examine whether the claim should or should not be entertained for the reason that there is another forum which is more appropriate. This doctrine would, however, not be the determinative factor and in a case where no fraction or even an infinitesimal part of the cause of action as arisen within its territorial limits the jurisdiction of the Court may not be invoked. 158. The aforementioned propositions broadly set out the contours with regard to the position of law in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 158. The aforementioned propositions broadly set out the contours with regard to the position of law in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We may add that though an attempt has been made to cover the expanse of the precedents which are available, the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, is by no means exhaustive, in view of wide expanse of the scope and the varying interpretations rendered by the Courts keeping in view the complexities which arise in the interpretation of the scope of the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts." 18. Taking into consideration the facts of the case as also keeping in view the principles regarding cause of action, territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens, we are of the view that the present writ petition, for payment of due amount, which in fact has to be paid first by the opposite party No. 4-Bihar State Beej Nigam, Bihar to NAFED and thereafter the petitioner can get the same from NAFED, is not maintainable before this Court. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable before this Court. No order as to costs.