THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.29000, 29001, 29002, 29003 and 29004 of 2009 and 1260 of 2010 Date:20.06.2011 Between: Motaparthi Mounika Krishna and others ..... Petitioners AND The Central Counselling Board, AIEEE, and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri I. Samba Siva Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Ambati Rajender Kumar for Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, Assistant Solicitor General Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri M.S.Prasad Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, these writ petitions are taken up together for disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. These writ petitions are filed for Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not refunding the fee paid by the petitioners and the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in settling the issue for return of fee to the petitioners by respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners herein have appeared for AIEEE (All India Engineering/Architecture Entrance Examination) - 2009 conducted through National Institute of Technology (NIT), Warangal – respondent No.1 herein. Having been selected in the said examination, the petitioners were given admission in respondent No.3 University. Each of the petitioners has paid Rs.10,000/- towards developmental charges, Rs.42,000/- towards tuition fee, admission fee and unit test fee on 23.07.2009 totalling to Rs.52,000/-. The petitioners pleaded that as per the procedure, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid initially at Warangal to respondent No.2 Central Counselling Board which will be apportioned by respondent No.1 Board to the Colleges to which the students are finally allotted. However, in the 5th round of counselling, the petitioners have got admission into NIT, Warangal. By that time, the petitioners have already the paid fee to respondent No.3, which is a deemed University. When the petitioners requested respondent No.3 to issue transfer certificate along with other educational certificates to enable them to join the College in which they were subsequently allotted seats, they were informed by respondent No.3 that they shall pay the entire tuition fee i.e., Rs.60,000/- for one year without which respondent No.3 will not refund the certificates. The petitioners pleaded that in view of the urgency involved, the said amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid by them. The petitioners, therefore, filed the present writ petitions seeking refund of Rs.52,000/- which was paid on 23.07.2009 and Rs.60,000/- at the time of admission. Separate, but similar counter-affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.3, wherein the right of the petitioners for refund of the fee already paid is denied. Respondent No.3 has also taken preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions in this Court by stating that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. In view of this preliminary objection, this Court needs to first decide this question before considering whether the writ petitions can be disposed of on merits. Under Clause (1) of Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India, the High Courts are empowered to issue various prerogative writs indicated therein throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to any person or authority including appropriate Government. Clause (2) thereof, which was added by way of amendment, also empowers the High Court to issue such writs to any Government authority or person 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. Admittedly, respondent No.3 carries on its activities within the State of Tamil Nadu and it does not have its registered office within the territory of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not attracted in order to maintain the present writ petitions. As regards Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners shall establish that cause of action, either wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories of Andhra Pradesh. The issue relating to ‘cause of action’ is subject matter of a catena of judgments, where it has been held that cause of action which is not defined anywhere either in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or under the Constitution of India is a bundle of facts which are material, essential or integral for the adjudication of the dispute. (See Alchemist Limited v. State Bank of Sikkim[1], Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu[2] and State of Rajasthan and others v. Swaika Properties and another[3]) In the present cases, the whole dispute pertains to refund of fee by respondent No.3 University. Even though the petitioners have qualified in the entrance examination held in Warangal within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, in which they were selected, the fact of holding such examinations does not constitute an integral fact giving rise to cause of action. The petitioners failed to plead and prove that any fact relating to refund of fee by respondent No.3 has taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court. On a careful consideration of the facts in their entirety, I have no hesitation to hold that no part of cause of action in respect of the dispute pertaining to the return of the fee paid to respondent No.3 has arisen within the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, in my opinion, this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised by the petitioners. If the petitioners are so advised, they are entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings in the Madras High Court. On the premises as above, these writ petitions are dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of these writ petitions, interim order dated 19.10.2010 in W.P.M.P.No.37629 of 2009 in W.P.No.29004 of 2009 is vacated, and W.P.M.P.No.37629 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.1886 of 2011 in W.P.No.29004 of 2009 and all the pending W.P.M.Ps. in other writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th June, 2011 GHN [1] AIR 2007 SC 1812 [2] (1994) 4 SCC 711 [3] (1985) 3 SCC 217