Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 3.3.80 and 17.3.80 before this Court by way of this writ petition, which is filed in 1989. Thus, there is a gross delay of 9 years. The reasons for the delay is tried to be explained by the petitioner that under some wrong impression the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition before the Calcutta High Court in 1980. Unfortunately, that writ petition was dismissed only on 10.1.1989 after 9 years on the preliminary objection raised by the other side regarding jurisdiction. Shri Upadhayay, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court has observed in the Judgment (Annex. 1) that :- ``It is fit and proper to record that the rejection of the writ application will not prevent the writ petitioner from expousing his grievances before the competent court having jurisdiction to entertain the writ application. Pendency thereto for these years will not constitute grounds for delay for moving this writ application, in the event, such application is taken up. (2). Thus, Mr. Upadhayay submitted that the delay is satisfactorily explained. With profound respect to the Calcutta High Court, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that when the Court itself refused to exercise its powers on the ground that it has no ju- risdiction then that very court cannot make any observation much less observation in the form of direction directing the other competent court to condone the delay and decide the case on merits. In any case, any direction issued without jurisdiction by any other High Court is not binding on any other High Court including this Court. (3). In that view of the matter, the petitioner, at first instance, should not have filed a petition before the Calcutta High Court. Before filing the petition, the petitioner should have verified as to whether the Court had jurisdiction or not ? (4). Under the aforesaid circumstances, this petition is dismissed only on the ground of gross delay and latches, without going into the merits of the case, with no order as to costs.