Receipt of dismissal order at home address constitutes part of cause of action under Article 226(2).

The appellant, an employee of the Border Security Force (BSF) since 1994, was compulsorily retired on grounds of unsuitability on 31.07.2021

Following his retirement, he filed an appeal from his native residence in Saharsa, Bihar, which was rejected by the BSF authorities via correspondence sent to his Bihar address

The appellant challenged his retirement in the Patna High Court via C.W.J.C. No. 9289 of 2022. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 31.01.2026, holding that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the primary cause of action arose in Chhattisgarh

The appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) solely to challenge the finding on jurisdiction

1. Whether the Patna High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226(2) of the Constitution when the order of retirement/rejection of representation was communicated to the appellant at his residence in Bihar

Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which empowers a High Court to issue writs if the cause of action arises "wholly or in part" within its territories, regardless of the seat of government or authority

Section 20(c) of the CPC for interpreting "cause of action" as the bundle of facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove his right to judgment

Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, establishing that even a small fraction of the cause of action grants jurisdiction

Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India were applied to establish that the communication of an adverse order or rejection of representation to a petitioner’s native address in a particular State constitutes a part of the cause of action in that State.

The Court reasoned that "cause of action" includes not only the infraction of a right but also the factual situation entitling a person to a remedy

In the present case, while the initial retirement order might have originated elsewhere, the appellant’s representation was sent from Bihar, and the BSF’s subsequent refusal to reinstate him (Annexure R-8) was communicated directly to his address in Saharsa, Bihar

Following the precedent in Rameshwar Prasad, the Court observed that a dismissal or retirement order becomes effective and "known" to the person only upon communication. Since a fraction of the cause of action—specifically the communication of the rejection of his reinstatement plea—occurred within Bihar, the Patna High Court possesses the territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter

The Division Bench set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 and revived C.W.J.C. No. 9289 of 2022. The matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge for a hearing on the merits, as the Patna High Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute