Judgment :- Petitioners seek to quash Exts.P4 to P-17 demand notices sent by the fifth respondent for realisation of amounts due to the first respondent. Contention of the petitioners is that the firm in which they are partners was not made a defaulter by the first respondent and no proceedings are initiated against the firm and so their liabilities as partners arise only when the firm becomes liable, 2. As Exts.P-4 to P17 were issued by the Tahsildar (Revenue recovery), Thrissur for realisation of the amounts due to the State of Tamil Nadu (first respondent), the question that arises for consideration is whether it is open to the petitioners to challenge the same before this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly proceedings were initiated against the petitioners by the first respondent. Of course, Exis.P-4 to P-17 were issued for realisation of the amount by the Tahsildar (Revenue recovery), Thrissur (fifth respondent). Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as Exts.P4 to P-17 notices were issued by the fifth respondent, the writ petition is perfectly maintainable. Learned Government Pleader who took notice for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the entire cause of action arose in Tamil Nadu and so before this Court petitioners cannot challenge revenue recovery proceedings initiated in Kerala. 3. Clause (1 a) under Art.226 of the Constitution of India which was inserted by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 has been renumbered as Clause (2) by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. Art.226(1) gives power to every High Court to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant to and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Clause (2) reads: - "The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within these territories." Prior to the insertion of Clause (1A) the position was that the writs did not run beyond the territories in relation to which each High Court exercised jurisdiction. Thus, a High Court could not issue writ or order under Art.226 unless the person, authority or Government against whom the writ is sought was a resident or located within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. Under Clause (1A) which has been renumbered as Clause (2) by the 42nd Amendment Act the position is made different. As it stands now, if the cause of action arises wholly or in part within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, it can issue writ under Art.226 to any person or authority resident within the jurisdiction of another High Court. In view of Clause (2) of Art.226, the High Court can issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or. Person even beyond its territory, if the cause of action arose at least partly within its territorial jurisdiction. 4. No part of the cause of action has arisen within Kerala. The cause of action arose wholly in Tamil Nadu. As no part of the cause of action arose within Kerala, this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Art.226 merely because revenue recovery notices were issued to the petitioners by the fifth respondent. Issuance of the notices cannot be construed as part of the cause of action arising in Kerala. It can only be understood that the fifth respondent has issued Exts.P-4 to P-17 notices to the petitioners to enable the first respondent to realise the amounts due to it from the petitioners. In a case where the instrumentality of a particular State wants the assistance of another State to realise amount due,to it, aggrieved person cannot approach the High Court of the latter State under Art.226 only if the cause of action arose at least partly there. 5. In a case where the instrumentality of a particular State wants the assistance of another State to realise amount due,to it, aggrieved person cannot approach the High Court of the latter State under Art.226 only if the cause of action arose at least partly there. 5. In State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Swaika Properties and another (AIR 1985 SC 1289), the Supreme Court had occasion to consider whether service of notice would amount to cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the court. The Supreme Court held that mere service of notice cannot give rise to a cause of action unless the service of such notice is an integral part of the cause of action. As no cause of action arose at least partly in Kerala and as the demand notice issued by the fifth respondent cannot be construed as forming an integral part of cause of action which arose wholly in Tamil Nadu, petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition is dismissed.