WP(C) 354/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioners in substance challenge the orders passed by the Excise & Taxatio n Officer cum Assessing Authority of the Haryana Government under the Haryana Va lue Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the VAT Act, 2003 ) and als o the Sale Notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstru ction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 read wi th Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, issued by the A sset Recovery Management Branch of Canara Bank located at New Delhi. 2. Considering the location of the Authorities who are based outside the te rritorial jurisdiction of this Court, an additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioners on 31.1.2011 wherein it is reflected that some correspondence in connection with the impugned action was made by the Bank Authorities at Delhi t o one of the Directors of the petitioner Company, who resides at Guwahati. On th is basis submission is advanced by the petitioners to contend that this Court ha s territorial jurisdiction to examine the impugned action in the present case. 3. For the Writ Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Con stitution, what is more important is the location of the Authorities against who m Writ is sought i.e. whether they are within the territorial jurisdiction of th e Court. The residence of one of the Director of the petitioner Company within t he Court’s jurisdiction is hardly sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the High Court at Guwahati, when all the Authorities whose actions are challenged are res iding outside the territorial limits of this Court. 4. Although the Registered Office of the petitioners company is located at Guwahati, the manufacturing unit of the petitioners is located at Bahadurgarh an d the factory is registered as a SSI Unit under the General Manager of the Distr ict Industry Center, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar in the State of Haryana. The cause of action in the instant case arise out of the action taken by the Authorities unde r the Haryana VAT Act, 2003 and also by the concerned Branch of the Canara Bank which is located at New Delhi. It therefore is apparent that the integral part o f the cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 5. The law on the point of Court’s jurisdiction is enunciated by a 7 member Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of In dia reported in AIR 1961 SC 532 where it is held that: 13. & & & & &.. It seems to us therefore that it is not permissible to read in A cle 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed in the order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court. That jurisdiction dep ends 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 t he question of the High Court’s jurisdiction . 6. The above view was reiterated subsequently by the Apex Court in Alchemis t Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim reported in (2007) 11 SCC 335, wherein referring to the 42nd Amendment, the Court declared the following: 16. It may be stated that by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, Clause (1-A) was renumbered as Clause (2). The underlying object of amendm ent was expressed in the following words: Under the existing Article 226 of the Constitution, the only High Court which h as jurisdiction with respect to the Central Government is the Punjab High Court. This involves considerable hardship to litigants from distant places. It is, th erefore, proposed to amend Article 226 so that when any relief is sought against any Government, authority or person for any action taken, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises may also have jurisdiction to iss ue appropriate directions, orders or writs. 18. The legislative history of the constitutional provisions, therefore, mak es it clear that after 1963, cause of action is relevant and germane and a writ petition can be instituted in a High Court within the territorial jurisdiction o f which cause of action in a whole or in part arises. 37. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in a catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of decidi ng whether facts averred by the appellant-petitioner would or would not constitu te a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitute a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt tr ue that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisd iction 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. 7. In view of above and having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Cour t in it’s decision reported in AIR 1961 SC 532 (Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India), which decision was subsequently followed in (2007) 11 SCC 335 (Alchem ist Ltd. v. State Benk of Sikkim), I hold that since the respondent Authorities are outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court lacks the nec essary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Even on the Principle o f Forum Conveniens , it would be more appropriate for the petitioners to seek t heir remedy in the appropriate Court of competent jurisdiction even though a sma ll fraction of the cause of action may arise within this Court’s jurisdiction. 8. In view of above, this petition is not accepted for want of jurisdiction and is dismissed.