S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) ALTHOUGH this writ application was listed under the heading. "to be mentioned" with consent of parties, this application was treated to be on day's list as 'listed Motion'. ( 2 ) MR. Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised a short question in support of this application. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners having substantially complied with the condition No. (d) of special conditions as appearing in the tender notice as contained in Annexure 'a' to the writ application by filing the requisite certificate as contained in Annexure 'b' to the writ application, the request of the Chief General Manager, Production of Northern Coalfields Limited, Singroli, in terms of his letter dated 23. 9. 95 to submit experience certificate duly counter signed either by the concerned Director or CMD of Central Coalfields Limited within 26. 9. 95 which was impossible to be performed, the respondents should be directed to grant suitable extension. ( 3 ) MR. Roy appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ application. Learned counsel further submits that from a perusal of the special conditions as referred to by Mr. Pal, it would appear that a certificate is required to be submitted for the period of August 1992 to July 1995, but from a perusal of the certificate dated 1. 2. 95 filed by the petitioners as contained in Annexure 'b' to the writ application it would appear that the same is for the period of February 1992 to January 1993. Learned counsel contends that in this view of the matter the certificate does not conform to the requirement either in form or in procedure. ( 4 ) THE petitioners have filed this writ application against Northern Coalfields Limited, whose registered office is at Singroli. The tender notice dated 31. 7. 95 as contained in Annexure 'a' to the writ application was issued from Singroli. The subject matter of the aforementioned tender notice is in relation to transportation of coal from Bina Stockyard to Bina wharf wall and handling of rejects. All these places are within the State of Madhya Pradesh. The letter was addressed to the petitioners at Bina Project Road, Bina. The contention of the petitioners that the said notice was served at the petitioners' registered office is disputed by Mr. Roy. All these places are within the State of Madhya Pradesh. The letter was addressed to the petitioners at Bina Project Road, Bina. The contention of the petitioners that the said notice was served at the petitioners' registered office is disputed by Mr. Roy. However, in paragraph 29 of the writ application the petitioners have, inter alia, stated: "the impugned communication dated 23rd September, 1995 was addressed to and was received by the petitioners at Calcutta. " Surprisingly enough the said statements have not been verified by the deponent who has affirmed the affidavit in support of the writ application. No, credence, therefore can be put to such statements. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, I am of the view that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ application in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court of India in O. N. G. C v. Utpal Basu, reported in 1994 (4) SCC 711 . In any event, as it is now well settled in view of several decisions of this court that where only a small part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court it may refuse to entertain a writ application in its discretion. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases reported in 97 Calcutta Weekly Notes 122 and 1994 (1) C. H. N. 444. In view of the fact that this court does not have any territorial jurisdiction, I do not consider it necessary to enter into the merit of the matter, and as such, the petitioners will be at liberty to file a writ application before an appropriate court. This application is, therefore, dismissed. Application dismissed.