JUDGMENT Admittedly, the petitioner at the relevant time was posted at Jullandhar and the movement order was served on him at Jullandhar. The petitioner was relieved from Military duties under the order of Raksha Mantralaya Karyalaya Maha Nedeshak Sashastra Sena Chikitsa Seva, New-Delhi. The petitioner's statutory complaint made by him from Jullandhar was dismissed by Government of India at New-Delhi. Although, the appeal preferred by the petitioner from his village in the district of Bhind when came to be dismissed, the dismissal order was conveyed to him, at his village address. But that would not provide the cause of action to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The authorities passing the order and relieving him from services are stationed outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The contentions of respondent, therefore, is that the writ of this Court in the circumstances cannot run beyond its territorial jurisdiction and the reliance is placed by Shri Mittal in this regard on Palu Ram v. I.T.O. Nagpur ( 1960 JLJ 1195 ) and Surhajimal v. State of M.P. (1957 JLJ 1011). Shri Mittal has further referred to a decision of this Court in A. Stenley v. D.S. Central Railway Jhansi (1961 MPLJ Note 73), wherein when an objection was taken by the respondents that this Court would not entertain the petition for quashing the order passed by Divisional Supdt. Central Railway Jhansi, as the authority was not within the jurisdiction of this Court was held good. If an order was passed later on by the authority stationed outside the jurisdiction, on its visit to a particular place and un entertaining a matter, suo moto in the revision and passing an order, that order could still not be challenged at that place for having been passed at a place being within the jurisdiction of this Court as was found by this Court in Bharomal v. Narain Tejumal (1960 MPLJ S.N. 212). This Court in that case found that an authority permanently located and normally carrying out its activities in New-Delhi cannot be bound by a writ issued by this Court, although, the matter was taken up by the authority at Jabalpur during its short visit but that did not provide the jurisdiction for challenging the order at Jabalpur under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further this Court in M.P. No. 935/89 (Harihar Singh v. Union of India & others), under the similar situation and considering the above authorities has held that the petition was liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. After the movement order was served on the petitioner at Jullandhar, he has also availed the single journey Railway warrant from Jullandhar to Morena and he was allowed to leave the unit at Jullandhar. In this view of this matter and in the circumstances, we are of the view that this Court cannot command it writ to an authority beyond its territorial jurisdiction when no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the petition cannot be entertained by this Court for lake of territorial jurisdiction. However, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the Court having jurisdiction in the matter if so advised. 1960 JLJ 1195 , 1957 JLJ 1011, 1961 MPLJ SN 73 and 1960 MPLJ SN 212 distinguished. M.P. No. 935/89 relied on.