JUDGMENT : RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. 1. The Petitioner Kiran Prakash Misra, has filed the present writ petition in which the party Respondent are (sic) thus: (1) State of Arunachal Pradesh Union of India through the secretary to Education, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, (2) Union of India through the Secretary of Education, Human Resources Department Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and (3) Mrs. K. Namcheem, Joint Director, Public Information Arunachal Pradesh, Nahariugun. He filed a Writ Petition No. 877 of 1990 before the Supreme Court on which the following order was passed: J.S. Verma Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha Learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for permission to withdraw this writ petition stating that if so advised, the Petitioner would file a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 2. In the petition, the Petitioner has made the following prayers: "1. A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents immediately to allow Petitioner to work in the Institution where he was already posted before proceeding on extraordinary leave or to post him on promotionary status if any at any suitable Institution under the Department. 2. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to treat the Petitioner in the continued service on full pay of the Department giving all benefits of seniority, promotions and back wages with Interest at the rate of 16% per annum till date. 3. Any writ, direction or order which the Hon'ble this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 4. Award costs of this petition a favour of the Petitioner." 3. The contention in the writ petition is that after having completed two years of service on 31 August, 1984 as a Junior Teacher at the Govt. M.E. School, Liqu, District Upper Subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh, be sought extraordinary leave for three months to see his ailing mother which leave was permitted for the period 15 October, 1984 to 14 January, 1985 and, thereafter, the Petitioner himself became ill and stayed at home on extraordinary leave for three months which was extended on medical grounds for one and a half months. The Director of Public Instructions, Arunachal Pradesh did not refuse the leave on medical grounds. The Director of Public Instructions, Arunachal Pradesh did not refuse the leave on medical grounds. But, when the Petitioner reported for duties to the District Education Officer, concerned at Arunachal Pradesh on 29 March, 1985, he was not permitted to join his duties and his case was referred to the Director of Public Instructions on 4 April, 1985. The Petitioner contends that there has been no action on the matter relating to the leave which he sought or the extended leave for which he had applied. In the meantime, he contends, that he had joined B Ed. course at Atarra P.G. College, Atarra, district, Banda, Uttar Pradesh He claims that he ought to be granted study leave. It is the Petitioner's contention that he is entitled for duties at the Institution, i.e. Government M.E. School, Liqu, District Upper Subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh and as the party Respondent would not either take him on duties nor pay his salary, thus, he has filed the present writ petition. 4. Any cause of action on which the Petitioner seeks relief, it is clear and it is accepted to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, always did arise and will continue to arise within the State of Arunachal Pradesh. When the Supreme Court permitted the withdrawal of the petition on 9 November 1992 there; was no such, direction that the petition will be filed at the Allahabad High Court. As the Court is making no comments on the merits of the case of the Petitioner, but assuming that if a notice motion were to be issued it would be harassment to the party Respondents to come running all the way from Arunachal Pradesh to answer the present writ petition. 5. As it is clear to this Court that a cause of action, in reference to the context and facts and circumstance of the present case, has arisen within the Territories of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Sub-clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India would make it inappropriate for this Court to issue writ on this petition. Even as a rule of prudence from the record of the writ petition it is clear that nothing has happened within the State of Uttar Pradesh and every thing on which the Petitioner has complained has happened in another State, thus, this petition ought not to be entertained by this Court and should be laid to rest. Even as a rule of prudence from the record of the writ petition it is clear that nothing has happened within the State of Uttar Pradesh and every thing on which the Petitioner has complained has happened in another State, thus, this petition ought not to be entertained by this Court and should be laid to rest. Consigned to the Record.