JUDGMENT : (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) : 1. Heard Shri Sanjay Bhasin Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vipul Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned counsel for the Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Vivek Kumar Shukla, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5, Shri Gaurav Mehrotra and Shri Nirankar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has made following main prayer:- “To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by State Level Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow -Respondent No.2, order dated 15.07.2023 passed by Divisional Appellate Forum for Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur Respondent No.3 and the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by District Level Caste Certificate Verification Committee, District Muzaffarnagar Respondent No.4, which said orders are morefully annexed as Annexure No.1, Annexure No.2 and Annexure No.3 respectively to the Writ Petition.” 3. On the last date of hearing, a preliminary objection was raised that earlier the petitioner has filed as many as four petitions before this Court sitting at Allahabad and prayer made in this Writ Petition is for quashing of three orders-(i) order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Muzafarnagar, (ii) order dated 15.07.2023 passed by Divisional Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Saharanpur and (iii) order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the State Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. The first two orders have been passed at Muzaffarnagar, and Saharanpur, both of which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting at Lucknow. Although the third order dated 14.02.2022 has been passed by the State Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting at Lucknow, as two of the orders have been passed within the limits of territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting at Allahabad and earlier the petitioner has filed as many as four writ petitions at Allahabad, two of which are still pending, it would not be proper for this Court sitting at Lucknow to entertain this writ petition and the petitioner should file this writ petition also at Allahabad. 4. 4. Replying to the aforesaid preliminary objection, Shri Sanjay Bhasin Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the first writ petition bearing Writ-C No.20676 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers:- “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the stay the effect and operation of order dated 9.6.2023 passed by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee till the disposal of the stay application filed by the petitioner in appeal dated 14.6.2023. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee/appellate authority to decide the petitioner’s stay application dated 14.6.2023 (Annexure 16 to the writ petition). (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee to sent the matter to the vigilance sell for verification of petitioners caste certificate as per the provision contained in government order dated 05.01.1996.” 5. Writ-C No.20676 of 2023 was disposed of by means of an order dated 22.06.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court sitting at Allahabad directing the Appellate Authority to decide the stay application of the petitioner within a week’s time. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ C No.23754 of 2023 challenging the validity of a show cause notice dated 05.07.2023 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Muzaffarnagar requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the office of Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar on the ground that the aforesaid office was reserved for persons belonging to Other Backward Classes and the petitioner had wrongly obtained a certificate that he belong to Kalal caste whereas the District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee has found in its order dated 09.06.2023 that the petitioner does not belong to the aforesaid backward caste and he belongs to a general caste. Consequent to the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, the Tehsildar, Khatauli had passed an order dated 12.06.2023 cancelling the Caste Certificate of the petitioner. 7. Consequent to the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, the Tehsildar, Khatauli had passed an order dated 12.06.2023 cancelling the Caste Certificate of the petitioner. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the Caste Certificate of the petitioner certifying that he belong to a backward caste Kalal had already been cancelled by the District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and an appeal filed against the order of the District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee was pending before the Divisional Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, the writ petition was disposed of expressing the expectation that the Appellate Authority will comply with the order dated 22.06.2023 passed in Writ-C No.20676 of 2023. 8. Thereafter the respondent No.6 Krishna Pal filed Election Petition No.5 of 2023 before the Election Tribunal/District Judge, Muzaffarnagar challenging election of the petitioner to the post of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli and a notice of the election petition was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner then filed Writ-C No.27653 of 2023 before this Court sitting at Allahabad, in which an interim order dated 19.10.2023 was passed staying further proceedings of Election Petition. The aforesaid writ petition is still pending. 9. Meanwhile, the State Government initiated proceedings under Section 48 of Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1916 for removal of the petitioner from the office of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli on the ground that he was not qualified to be elected as an Other Backward Class candidate and the administrative and financial powers of the petitioner as Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad were seized. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ-C No.44898 of 2023 mainly on the ground that the issue of the petitioner’s Caste Certificate was sub judice before the District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and it was otherwise not a consideration germane for the proceedings to be initiated under Section 48 of the Act. 10. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Election Petition was the only course by which his election could be challenged and an Election Petition had already been filed and it had been stayed by the High Court. An interim order was passed in the aforesaid writ petition on 16.01.2024 staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 08/11.03.2023. That writ petition is also pending consideration before this High Court sitting at Allahabad. 11. An interim order was passed in the aforesaid writ petition on 16.01.2024 staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 08/11.03.2023. That writ petition is also pending consideration before this High Court sitting at Allahabad. 11. Submission of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the subject of all the four writ petitions was separate and distinct from the subject matter of this writ petition, which is the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the State Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. He has further submitted that in furtherance of an order passed by the State Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, a vigilance inquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Cell at Lucknow and the report was submitted in favour of the petitioner on 11.12.2023. The State Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee has passed the impugned order against the findings of the Vigilance report. He has further submitted that the entire proceedings of State Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee was conducted at Lucknow and an order was also passed at Lucknow and, therefore, the subject matter of this Writ petition falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court sitting at Lucknow. 12. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. What appears from the material available on record at this stage is that the petitioner was elected as Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kjhatauli, District Muzaffarnagar, which was a seat reserved for a candidate belonging to OBC (Other Backward Class). The petitioner, on the strength of a Caste Certificate issued by Tehsildar, Khatauli, claimed himself to be belonging to Kalal Caste, which falls within the category ‘Other Backward Class’. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 raised a challenge against the petitioner’s claim of belonging to Kalal caste and they contended that he is belongs to ‘Sheikh’ Caste. The matter was examined by the District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee at Muzaffarnagar, which passed an order dated 09.06.2023 holding that the petitioner belongs to Sheikh caste and he does not belonged to Kalal Backward Caste. This order was passed at Muzaffarnagar, which falls within the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting at Allahabad. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee before the Divisional Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee at Saharanpur. This order was passed at Muzaffarnagar, which falls within the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting at Allahabad. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee before the Divisional Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee at Saharanpur. During pendency of his appeal, he filed Writ Petition No.20676 of 2023 referred to above, inter alia seeking a direction to the Divisional Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee for deciding his stay application. This writ petition was disposed off by means of an order dated 22.06.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court sitting at Allahabad. 13. Consequent to the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Muzaffarnagar, Tehsildar Khatauli passed an order dated 12.06.2023 cancelling the Caste Certificate of the petitioner and thereafter a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the office of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar on the ground that the District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee has found that he does not belong to Kalal Backward Caste and Tehsildar Khatauli had cancelled his Cast Certificate by means of an order dated 12.06.2023. The petitioner then filed Writ-C No.23754 of 2023 before this Court at Allahabad, which was disposed off by a Division bench by expressing an expectation that the Appellate Authority will comply with the order dated 22.06.2023 passed in Writ C No.20676 of 2023. 14. The respondent No.6 filed an Election Petition before the Election Tribunal/District Judge, Muzaffarnagar challenging election of the petitioner to the post of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli on the ground that the aforesaid post was reserved for candidates belonging to OBC category and the District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee having recorded a finding in its order dated 09.06.2023 that the petitioner does not belong to Kalal caste and his caste certificate having been cancelled by the Tehsildar in furtherance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner’s election to the office of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli, which was reserved for candidates belonging to OBC category, is liable to be set aside. The petitioner then filed Writ-C No.27653 of 2023 challenging proceeding of the Election Petition and this Court sitting at Allahabad has passed an interim order dated 19.10.2023 staying the proceedings of the election petition. The petitioner then filed Writ-C No.27653 of 2023 challenging proceeding of the Election Petition and this Court sitting at Allahabad has passed an interim order dated 19.10.2023 staying the proceedings of the election petition. That writ petition is pending before this Court sitting at Allahabad. 15. Meanwhile, proceedings for removal of the petitioner from the Office of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli have been initiated under section 48 of Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 and the petitioner has filed yet another Writ-C No.44898 of 2023. The effect and operation of the order dated 08/11.12.2023 whereby the administrative and financial powers of the petitioner as Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli have been seized, has been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court sitting at Allahabad, the aforesaid writ petition is also pending consideration before this Court sitting at Allahabad. 16. The relevant portion of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides as follows:— “226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs:— (i) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose (ii) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories (iii)…….” (Emphasis added) 17. A bare perusal of Article 226 of the Constitution of India makes it manifest that it confers power upon every High Court to issue directions, orders or writs throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. A bare perusal of Article 226 of the Constitution of India makes it manifest that it confers power upon every High Court to issue directions, orders or writs throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Clause (2) of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India further provides that the power to issue directions, orders or writs may be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territory within which the cause of action wholly or in part arises for exercise of such power. As the Writ Petition inter alia seeks quashing of the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by State Level Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, undisputedly a part of cause of action for filing this Writ Petition has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting at Lucknow and, therefore, this Court sitting at Lucknow has jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is maintainable here. 18. However, here the question involved is not of maintainability of the Writ Petition at Lucknow as a part of cause of action has undoubtedly accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at sitting Lucknow, the question is of propriety of this Court exercising its discretion to entertain the Writ Petition here, when the root cause for filing the Writ Petition accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting at Allahabad and the petitioner has already filed as many as four Writ Petitions mentioned above at Allahabad, two of which are still pending. 19. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that: - “Forum conveniens 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 conveniens. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney [ AIR 1941 Cal 670 : ILR (1941) 1 Cal 490] , Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945) 49 CWN 357 : AIR 1949 Cal 495] , Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. [1997 CWN 122] , S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India [ (1994) 1 CHN 445 ] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India [ AIR 1994 Del 126 ] .] 20. Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 has placed before this Court a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Prem Prakash Yadav versus Union of India, (162) ALR 628 = (2024) 1 UPLBEC 119. That Writ Petition was filed before this Court sitting at Lucknow challenging validity of a Government Order dated 26.02.2014, whereby approval was given to revise rates for conversion of Nazul property into freehold. The petitioner had also challenged a notification dated 04.03.2014 issued by the State Government. A further prayer made was for protecting the petitioner’s possession over House No.23, Stanley Road, Allahabad. A preliminary objection was raised against maintainability of the writ petition at Lucknow on the ground that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition at Allahabad praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid property, which writ petition was disposed off by means of an order dated 19.02.2009. The petitioner then filed another Writ-C No.15798 of 2010 at Allahabad praying essentially for the same relief regarding the same property. The third writ petition was filed at Lucknow with respect to the same property. In the aforesaid factual background a Division Bench of this court held in Prem Prakash Yadav(Supra) that:- “9. No doubt petitioner is master of his petitions. In case jurisdiction partially falls at Lucknow in appropriate case a petition can be filed at Lucknow also. But in the present matter earlier repeatedly petitioner chose to file petitions at Allahabad and some of them are pending at Allahabad. The said fact ought to have been disclosed by the petitioner in the very first paragraph of his writ petition. The same was not done. But in the present matter earlier repeatedly petitioner chose to file petitions at Allahabad and some of them are pending at Allahabad. The said fact ought to have been disclosed by the petitioner in the very first paragraph of his writ petition. The same was not done. Even otherwise, the unique position with regard to Allahabad High Court is that under Clause14 of United Provinces High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 the petitions can be transferred by the Chief Justice while sitting at Lucknow to Allahabad but same can neither be transferred by him from Allahabad to Lucknow nor any Court can summon them. The matters at Allahabad can only be heard at Allahabad. Therefore, in the given circumstances, this Court can not summon the records from Allahabad. It creates a unique difficulty. Thus, in this peculiar situation it is necessary that once petitioner chooses between Lucknow or Allahabad for filing his petitions the same is a judicial discipline and ought to be followed in later petitions, if any filed. In absence of the same it becomes difficult for Courts at Allahabad and Lucknow, to have all the matters together and decide the same. Petitioner in garb of his power to chose forum can not cause inconvenience to Court and keep list pending unnecessary in bifurcated manner. 10. This type of disputes are frequently occurring before this Court. The difficulty faced by the Court, in the aforesaid circumstances, where a case cannot be transferred from Allahabad to Lucknow while they can be transferred from Lucknow to Allahabad only when Chief Justice of High Court sitting at Lucknow passes an order under Clause 14 of the United Provinces High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, creates unnecessary hurdle in disposal of cases, if jurisdiction is changed from one place to another by the parties to the dispute. It needs to be solved. 11. Merely because petitioner has a right to file writ petition before any Court of their choice either at Allahabad or Lucknow, it does not give them a kangaroo right to hop around jurisdiction on whims. It is not only his convenience, which is to be looked into, but convenience of all related is also relevant, including that of Court. Facts of this case are a glaring example of the same. The difficulty being faced by this Court is created by petitioner only. 12. It is not only his convenience, which is to be looked into, but convenience of all related is also relevant, including that of Court. Facts of this case are a glaring example of the same. The difficulty being faced by this Court is created by petitioner only. 12. A party has a choice to invoke jurisdiction of this Court either at Allahabad or at Lucknow and once they have exercised the said choice, parties should restrict themselves to their initial choice of forum while filing later petitions. Hopping around forums would be highly inconvenient to the working of the Court as in the present case. Once petitioner chooses a jurisdiction, out of many available, in normal course, he should stick with the same, unless he can provide cogent reasons for his hopping around. In the present case the petitioner has not provided any such reasons.” 21. When we examine the facts of the present case in light of law laid down in the aforesaid cases, it appears that the root cause for filing all the writ petitions is a challenge to the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner. All the writ petitions have been filed challenging various orders, all of which essentially emanate from the same root cause. Two writ petitions filed by the petitioner at Allahabad stand disposed of and two other writ petitions filed by him are still pending before this Court at Allahabad. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of three orders, two of which were passed at places falling within the exclusive territorial jurisdiction sitting at Allahabad. Although, the third order has been passed by the State Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee at Lucknow, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting at Allahabad, when the root cause for filing all the writ petitions is the same and the petitioner has already filed four writ petitions before this Court sitting at Allahabad, two of which are still pending, it would not be proper for this Court setting at Lucknow to entertain the 5th Writ Petition filed by the petitioner at Lucknow during pendency of two earlier writ petitions filed by him at Allahabad. 22. 22. At this stage, Shri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit in the present case have already been filed and the matter is ripe for final hearing and this plea was not raised in the counter affidavit, it would not be proper for this Court to refuse to hear the writ petition finally on the ground of the writ petition not being entertainable before this Court sitting at Lucknow. 23. The mere filing of a counter affidavit would not affect the demand of judicial propriety on the part of this Court sitting at Lucknow to refrain from hearing a writ petition while two earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner essentially arising out of the same root cause are pending before this Court sitting at Allahabad. 24. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner lastly submitted that instead of dismissing the writ petition and giving a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition at Allahabad, this Court should transmit the record of the present case to Allahabad for being decided there since the pleadings have been exchange by the parties. None of the learned Counsel raised any objection against this submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 25. Clause 14 of the Uttar Pradesh High Courts Amalgamation Order, 1948 inter alia provides that the Chief Justice may in his discretion order that any case or class of cases arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad. 26. Accordingly, this request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is accepted. Let the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for passing appropriate order for transfer of this Writ Petition to this Court sitting at Allahabad in terms of Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order.