Harnam Singh, J.
1. In order to appreciate the point that arises for decision in Letters Patent Appeal No. 34 of 1953 it is necessary to set out the facts of the case in some detail.
2. By notification made on 30-8-1949, the Chancellor of the East Punjab University gave directions under Section 15 (2) of the Act that out of six Fellows to be elected under Section 13 (1) (b) of the Act not less than two shall be Principals of Degree Colleges and two shall represent the Applied Sciences of Agriculture, Medicine and Engineering.
3. In September, 1952, election of ordinary Fellows of the Punjab University was held. In that election Professor Ram Kumar Luthra was candidate for election from amongst the Heads, Professors and Lecturers of affiliated Colleges within Section 13 (1) (b) of the East Punjab University Act. 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In that election Professor Ram Kumar was defeated.
4. Professor Ram Kumar filed election petition within Regulation 24 (xvi) made under the Act That petition was dismissed.
5. On 12-12-1952, Professor Ram Kumar applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for declaration that the election of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 was void. In the application under Article 226 of the Constitution the Punjab University, Solan, was impleaded to be respondent No. 1. In Civil Writ (Application) No. 2 of 1953 the reliefs sought were against the Punjab University, Solan.
6. By Judgment given on 14-5-1953, Khosla J. dismissed Civil Writ (Application) No. 2 of 1953 with costs.
7. From the judgment given in Civil Writ (Application) No. 2 of 1953 Professor Ram Kumar has come up under paragraph 10 of the Letters Patent.
8. In -- 'K. S. Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission', AIR 1964 SC 207 (A), B. K. Mukherja J. delivering the judgment of the Court said--
'There are only two limitations placed upon the exercise of these powers by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution; one is that the power is to be exercised 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction', that is to say, the 'writs' issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. The other limitation is that the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue 'writs' 'must, be within those territories' and this implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories. It is with reference to these two conditions thus mentioned that the jurisdiction of the High Courts to issue 'writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is to be determined.'
9. Admittedly, The Punjab University, Solan, is not within the territories in relation to which this Court exercises jurisdiction. If so, this Court was not competent to proceed with Civil Writ (Application) No. 2 of 1953.
10. Finding, as I do, that Civil Writ (Application) No 2 of 1953 was not competent under Article 226 of the Constitution. I dismiss with costs Letters Patent Appeal No. 34 of 1953.
11. I agree.