No territorial jurisdiction exists absent a material cause-of-action link to the High Court’s territory.

The petitioner challenged the order accepting his voluntary retirement from the BSF, alleging that he had sought retirement after permission to maintain a beard was revoked. The retirement application was submitted and accepted at Tura, Meghalaya.

The petitioner argued that the High Court had territorial jurisdiction because the Inspector General, BSF, Kashmir, and the Director General, BSF, New Delhi, were parties to the case.

The respondents objected that the material events and the impugned order occurred outside the Court’s territorial jurisdiction.

Whether any material, integral, or essential part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar.

Whether impleading the Inspector General, BSF, Kashmir, or the Director General, BSF, New Delhi, was sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court.

Article 226(2) of the Constitution permits a High Court to exercise jurisdiction where the cause of action arises wholly or in part within its territorial limits; the relevant part must be material, integral, or essential to the dispute.

Relying on Rajesh Kumar Tomar v. Union of India & Ors., the Court applied the principle that a mere fraction of the cause of action suffices only if it is integral or material to the lis.

It also relied on Zahoor Ahmad Baba v. Union of India & Ors. for the principle that receiving an impugned order within the Court’s territory does not, by itself, confer jurisdiction.

It also referred to Shahnawaz Ahmad v. Union of India & Ors. and the Division Bench decision in Tirath Ram v. Union of India & Ors. on the requirement that the cause of action be materially connected to the dispute.

The application for voluntary retirement was submitted and accepted at Tura, Meghalaya, and the impugned order was also passed there; the Court found that no material part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits.

The Inspector General, BSF, Kashmir, had no nexus with the controversy, while the Director General’s location in New Delhi did not make the matter amenable to every High Court in India.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court held that the petitioner had not shown an integral or essential part of the dispute arising within its jurisdiction.

The petitioner was left free to approach the jurisdictional court for relief.