This writ application has been filed by a firm, petitioner No. 1 through its proprietor, petitioner No. 2 to quash the following: (i) The tender process initiated pursuant to the tender issued by the respondent No.2 for purchase of Hand Held Search Light on rate contract. (ii) To quash the rate contract dated 25.2.2000 of the respondent No.2 awarding rate contract for supply of Hand Held Search Light to the respondent No.4. (iii) To issue the writ to the respondent No. 3 to complete and finalise the tender process initiated pursuant to the tender dated 28.9.1999. 2. The brief facts are as follows : The petitioner No.l is a proprietary firm. The respondent No. 3 issued a tender notice inviting tender on 28.9.1999 and the closing date of the said tender was fixed on 28.10.1999. The item which is concerned in this writ application is Hand Held Search Light and the said item is purchased centrally for various security forces of the Union as well as the State operating through out the country. The copy of the tender notice is at Annexure B to the writ application. 3. The petitioner herein submitted his tender on 27.10.1999. Altogether 9 (nine) parties including the petitioner No. 1 submitted tenders pursuant to the notice dated 28.9:1999. The tenders submitted by 8 (eight) parties including that of the petitioner No.l were found technically viable and accordingly they were selected on the technical bid. These 8 (eight) parties were thereafter asked to submit samples of the tender item on or before 14.12.1999. Accordingly, the petitioner No.l submitted sample of the tender item before the stipulated date. The petitioner submitted a sample of the item i.e. HHSL (in short) to the Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), New Delhi, a Govt of India undertaking for test and evaluation as per specification of the tender. The petitioner submitted a photo copy of the test certificate a dated 22.12.99 to the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 24.12.1999. A copy of the said letter is Annexure C to the writ application. There was no further progress of the said tender notice dated 28.9.1999. No party has been selected/finalised for the supply of HHSL pursuant to the tender notice dated 28.9.1999. 4. A copy of the said letter is Annexure C to the writ application. There was no further progress of the said tender notice dated 28.9.1999. No party has been selected/finalised for the supply of HHSL pursuant to the tender notice dated 28.9.1999. 4. That while the matter was at that stage, the petitioners could come to know that the rate of the general supply and the Department of Supplies, Govt of India, had issued a tender notice some time in November, 1999 for supply of the same item HHSL on rate contract bids. The petitioner tried to find out the notice of such tender in all the newspapers, both regional as well as national covering the period from October 1999 to December 1999 to find out about publication of the said notice inviting tender. No such notice was ever published in any of the newspapers. The petitioner also searched for the same in the Indian Trade Journal but it was not there. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner could come to know that the tender notice was issued some time in November, 1999 and the last date was 30.11.1999 and the time and date of the opening was fixed at 12.30 PM on the same day. It may be stated herein that the tender item is purchased centrally for the Union as well d as for the States, including the State of Assam and are stored in various places in India and Missions abroad. 6. No publicity was given to the said tender of the respondent No. 2 and no one knew about it. The manufacturers and suppliers of HHSL particularly from the North Eastern Region were totally kept in the dark. No one knew about such a tender. It is alleged that the said tender was floated by the respondent No. 2 for the benefit of one particular party and only one party submitted tender pursuant to the aforesaid tender notice and the respondent No. 4 was awarded the rate contract for supply of HHSL for a period from 17.2.2000 to 16.2.2001 vide the rate contract dated 25.2.2000 i.e. Annexure E to the writ application. The petitioner objected to this rate contract vide Annexure F. 7. It is alleged that the respondent No.2 has acted in a most illegal, unreasonable arbitrary and unfair manner. The petitioner objected to this rate contract vide Annexure F. 7. It is alleged that the respondent No.2 has acted in a most illegal, unreasonable arbitrary and unfair manner. Though the tender floated by the respondent No. 2 is a national level tender, no publicity was given at all for the same. The entire exercise was done in a surreptitious manner. There is absolutely lack of transpa­rency in the .matter. The intention is just to promote one party i.e. respondent No.4 only has submitted tender pursuant to the impugned tender notice. 8. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos 1 and 2 wherein it is stated that the value of the purchase against the rate contract is approximately Rs. l crore. Tender was published in Indian Trade Journal published by Director General, Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Calcutta. It was also published in the Director General of Supplies and Disposals (DGS & D) monthly bulletin. The rate contract was concluded by following-due process and after approval of the competent authorities. The rate contract was awarded in favour of the respondent No.4 at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per piece of the item. The respondent Nos 1 and 2 also challenged the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ application. It is stated that the tender was issued from Delhi and it was accepted in Delhi and hence only the Courts in Delhi have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue at hand and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is also stated that the tender notice was given wide publicity inasmuch as it was sent to approximately 400 authorities including the Deputy Director (Quality Assurance) of DCS & D at Maligaon, Gauhati 11, the Secretary of Industries, Govt of Assam. Dispur, Guwahati, Accountant General (A&E), Guwahati 5 and the Project Director of Technical Education, Govt of Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati 19. It is further stated that under the Manual i.e. DGS & D Manual, the tender notice was required to be sent to the Director of Industries of the State Govt in the instant case, the tender notice was sent to the Secretary, Industries, Govt of Assam, Dispur. Besides this, the above mentioned authorities were also sent the tender notice. The tender notice was also published in the Tender Bulletin. 9. Besides this, the above mentioned authorities were also sent the tender notice. The tender notice was also published in the Tender Bulletin. 9. An additional affidavit also filed oh behalf of the respondent Nos 1 and 2 wherein it is stated that by virtue of Annexure A to the additional affidavit, the publication offender notice in National Dailies where the value of purchase of Rs. 1 crore was made optional with the approval of the DGS & D. Though it was not published in the newspaper wide publicity was given to it. 10. Though there was a single tender the same was processed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Manual and it is not the case of the petitioner that the same was wrongly processed and were accepted, there being no bar for process the single tender and the authority acted legally and within jurisdiction. It is the further case of the respondent Nos 1 and 2 that the writ petitioner knew about the tender before the close of the tender but he did not submit his tender. 11. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4: The first ground is that the State of Assam has been made unnecessarily a party in the writ petition as it has nothing to do with this. The second ground is that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ application. The tender notice of rate contract is only published in the Indian Trade Journal and its monthly bulletin and it was forwarded to different authorities and this tender notice was also published in the Indian Trade Journal. It is stated that the tender of the respondent No.4 was accepted in a legal manner and there is no infirmity or illegality. 12. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the newly added respondent No. 6 and it has got its industry at Industrial Area, Panchkula in the State of Haryana and-manufacturing Hard Held Search Light. It is claimed that the respondent No. 6's company is a premier company in manufacturing the said HHSL. The said HHSL manufactured by the respondent No. 6's company is already in used by the various Defence Forces, State-Police including Assam Police Department. The price of such HHSL is Rs. It is claimed that the respondent No. 6's company is a premier company in manufacturing the said HHSL. The said HHSL manufactured by the respondent No. 6's company is already in used by the various Defence Forces, State-Police including Assam Police Department. The price of such HHSL is Rs. 4,250 and the specification of the HHSL appeared in the work order of the respondent No. 4 is same of the petitioner and the things manufacturing by the respondent No. 6 are same. So the price at which it has been accepted is a higher side being Rs. 5,000 per piece. It is the case of the respondent No. 6 also that the tender notice was not published in the newspapers. 13. An affidavit-in reply has been filed wherein the following pleas are taken up : That there was no adherence to para 8.3.2, of the DGS &D. Manual. That Manual came into force from 1.10.1999. It is denied by them that there was wide circulation to the various authorities in the State of Assam like the Indian Security Industry Association, Assam Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd, Federation of Industries & Commerce of North Eastern Region, Director of Industries and Commerce, Govt of Assam and National Small Industries Corporation Ltd and in support of this claim Annexure G series letters issued by this Association are annexed. Annexure G1 at page 7 of the affidavit-in-reply is a letter by the Indian Security Industry Association and that letter reads as follows: "East India Consortium May 03,2000 T-12, Parmeshwari Building, Chatribari Road, Guwahati-781001 Dear Sir, Please refer to your fax dated 26.04.2000 regarding the confirmation for the copy of the tender for Hand Held Search Light issued by-DCS &D, New Delhi vide No. ES/RC-4909600/HHSL/2001/37 send to us by DGS&D for further distribution to the member. We therefore wish to inform you that we have never received the above tender for redistribution. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Indian Security Industry Association Sd/- Secretary." At page 8 there is another letter by the Assam Small Industries Development Corporation. That letter is dated 3.6.2000 which reads as follows : "East India Consortium 3.6.2000 T-12, Parmeshwari Building, Chatribari Road, Guwahati-781001 Ref: DGS & D Tender No. ES-7/RC1409600/HHSL/2000-2001/37 for Handheld Search Light. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Indian Security Industry Association Sd/- Secretary." At page 8 there is another letter by the Assam Small Industries Development Corporation. That letter is dated 3.6.2000 which reads as follows : "East India Consortium 3.6.2000 T-12, Parmeshwari Building, Chatribari Road, Guwahati-781001 Ref: DGS & D Tender No. ES-7/RC1409600/HHSL/2000-2001/37 for Handheld Search Light. Sir, In response to your letter dated 26th April 2000,1 am to confirm you that we are yet to receive the tender for Hand Held Search Light reported to be issued by DGS & D. New Delhi vide No. ES-7/RC- 14909600/HHSL/2000-2001/37 as per our records. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, General Manager (Marketing)" There is another letter by the Federation of Industries & Commerce of North Eastern Region. That letter is dated May 3rd, 2000 which reads as follows: "East India Consortium T-12, Parmeshwari Building, Chatribari Road, Guwahati-781001 Ref: DOS & D Tender No. ES-7/RC 1409600/HHSL/2000-2001/37 for Hand Held Search Light. In reply to your letter dated 26th April 2000, we are to inform you that we have not received the captioned tender. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (B.Saikia,Ex: Secy.)" There is another letter at page 10 by the Deputy Director (Handicraft) dated 4th May, 2000 which reads as follows : "Sir, In inviting a reference to the subject cited above and your letter under reference, I am directed to inform you that this Directorate have not received the tender for Hand Held Search Light issued by DGS&D, New Delhi vide No. ES-7/RC-1409600/ HHSL/2000-2001/37 dated 30.9.99 as per our record. Sd/-Deputy Director (Handicraft)." There is an another letter at page 11 by the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd, a Govt of India enterprise dated 4.5.2000 which reads as follows: "This has the reference to your letter No. EIC/99-00/202 dated the 3rd March, 2000. In this connection, we are to inform you that we do not have any record of having received the Tender Enquiry of DGS & D, as quoted by you. This is for your information please. Thanking you, Sd/-A.K.Borthakur Regional Manager." 14. The introduction of the DGS & D Manual provides as follows : "(i) The objective has been to make the guidelines for Purchase Officers precise but comprehensive and as far as possible bring in transparency in the system of purchase." 15. In clause 7, it is stated as follows : "7.1.1. Thanking you, Sd/-A.K.Borthakur Regional Manager." 14. The introduction of the DGS & D Manual provides as follows : "(i) The objective has been to make the guidelines for Purchase Officers precise but comprehensive and as far as possible bring in transparency in the system of purchase." 15. In clause 7, it is stated as follows : "7.1.1. The Central Govt Departments/Ministries have been delegated full powers to meet their ad hoc requirements and in case of urgent requirements the items on rate contract could be purchased by the departments from the open market as long as the price to be paid for such items does not exceed those stipulated in the rate contracts. Such purchases should not exceed Rs. 20,000 at a time and Rs. 1 lakh in aggregate in a year." 16. Clause 8.3.2 is quoted below : "Advertised/Global Tender Enquiries: Where it has been decided to advertise the demand, advertisement should be given by indicating requirement briefly. With a view to enabling intending tenderers to have a clear idea of the stores to be purchased. This is done in the form of Tender Notice (Annexure 14). Particular attention should be paid to the points mentioned below : (a) A brief but clear description of stores required should be given with the raw material involved. For example, where the stores required is 'Container', it should be indicated 'plastic' or 'Metal' as the case may be so that only the firm dealing with the stores would buy the tender sets for the stores in which they are interested. (b) The destination of the stores and not the name of the consignee/indenter should be mentioned in the notice. (c).The quantity to be purchased should normally be indicated, but where the purchase officer considers that the disclosure of the full quantity may have adverse effect on the price at which purchase is likely to be made, he should exercise his discretion not to disclose full quantitative details. The Indian Trade Journal published by the Director General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Calcutta, which is a Govt publication, is regarded as the standard medium for advertising tender notices in India. It is not necessary all tender notices intended for publication through ITJ, should be sent in one lot. The notices issued on each day may be sent on the same day. It is not necessary all tender notices intended for publication through ITJ, should be sent in one lot. The notices issued on each day may be sent on the same day. For purchase of value of Rs.2 lakhs and above but less than Rs. 5 lakhs tender enquiries may be issued in the form of Classified Advertisements in the local news papers. For purchases of value of Rs. 5 lakhs and above, invitation of tenders may be advertised in the National Dailies in addition to the Indians Trade Journal." 17. In clause 8.3.3. provides forwarding of tender notice. It provides that the copy should be sent to the following: "The Director of Industries of the State Govts, State Small Industries Development Corporations." 18. The rate contract as defined is available and it also provides stores for which the rate contract are to be concluded. 19. Regarding ouster of jurisdiction of this Court, reliance is placed in clause 20 (3) of the conditions of contract, that clause 20 (3) is quoted below : "(3) Jurisdiction of Courts - The Courts of the place from where the acceptance offender has been issued shall alone have jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising out of or in respect of the contract." 20. As soon as this came to the knowledge of the petitioner he sent a protest letter i.e. Annexure 7 and that reads as follows : "During recent past one such tender for Hand Held Search Light was invited by DGS&D, New Delhi sometimes in November, 1999 without any press advertisement and copy of the said tender has not been sent to us for participation. The rate contract for the item has also been allotted against a single tender without much publication to offer a fair chance to compete the same to other manufacturer." 21. Annexure D schedule to tender, shows that the item is purchased centrally for the Union as well as for the States including State of Assam and are stored in various places in India and Missions abroad. 22. I have heard Shri N. Dutta, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri KK Mahanta, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos 1, 2 and 3, Shri AK Phookan, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4, the learned Govt Advocate 'for the State of Assam, respondent No. 5 and Shri DK Hazarika, learned Advocate for the respondent No 6. 23. 22. I have heard Shri N. Dutta, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri KK Mahanta, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos 1, 2 and 3, Shri AK Phookan, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4, the learned Govt Advocate 'for the State of Assam, respondent No. 5 and Shri DK Hazarika, learned Advocate for the respondent No 6. 23. Shri Phookan, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 raised preliminary objection that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to take up this matter inasmuch as the tender was invited in Delhi and the work is to be executed in Delhi and the payment etc to be made in Delhi and, as such, this Court has no jurisdiction. In order to appreciate this contention, first let us have a look at Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India which is quoted below : "(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue direction, orders or writs to any Govt, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation-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 Govt or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories." 24. Prior to insertion of clause (1A) it was held that the writs do not run beyond the territories in relation to which each High Court exercised jurisdiction. Hence, the High Court could not issue a writ or order under Article 226 unless the person, authority or Govt against whom the writ is sought for was physically resident or located within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. Clause (1 A) was renumbered as clause (2) by the 42nd Amendment Act. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, it may issue a writ against a person or authority resident in his jurisdiction or of another High Court. Now because of insertion of clause (2) the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action in respect of which relief is sought under Article 226 arises wholly or in part may issue a writ. 25. Now because of insertion of clause (2) the High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action in respect of which relief is sought under Article 226 arises wholly or in part may issue a writ. 25. Shri Phookan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 relied upon (1994) 4 SCC 711 (Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & others) where the Apex Court considered this aspect of the matter. The facts of this case are that ONGC had a plant at Hazira in the State of Gujarat and an advertisement was issued on 27.6.1991 in the leading newspapers of the country including those in circulation in West Bengal calling for tenders for c setting up of a Kerosene Recovery Processing Unit at the Hazira Complex, Gujarat. The tenders containing offers were to be communicated to EIL at New Delhi. NICCO having its registered office in Calcutta, submitted tender and the bid of NICCO was rejected. NICCO filed an application before the Calcutta High Court and on 17.12.1993 the following order was passed : "There will be an order directing the respondents to consider the offer of the petitioner along with the others and in the event, the petitioner's offer is otherwise found to be valid and lowest and in the event petitioner otherwise complies with the formalities, petitioner's offer should be accepted by the respondent authorities." Against this the present appeal was filed. The question which arose for consideration before the Apex Court is whether the averments made in the body of the writ petition taken individually or collectively assuming/deemed to be true constituted a cause of action for the maintenance of he writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta. In the judgment the relevant averments were quoted. In paragraph 6 the Supreme Court considered what is cause of action and the Supreme Court pointed out that it means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. Paragraph 6 is quoted below : "6. It is well settled that the expression 'cause of action' means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. Paragraph 6 is quoted below : "6. It is well settled that the expression 'cause of action' means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In Chand Kour vs. Partab Singh ILR (1989) 16 Cal 98,102 :15-IA 156, Lord Watson said: The cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour." Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the Court must take all the facts pleaded in support' of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. Therefore, the question whether in the instant case the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition in question even on the facts alleged must depend upon whether the averments made in paragraphs 5,7,18,22,26 and 43 are sufficient in law to establish that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, and the Supreme Court came to the finding that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court and accordingly the petition was dismissed. 26. 26. The next decision relied on is AIR 1981 Delhi 61 (Cummins Diesel Sales & Service (India) Ltd vs. Director General of Supplies & Disposals, New Delhi & another) that was of contract by DGS & D, and there also the Division Bench of Delhi High Court came to me following finding: "The rate contract was a contract but even if it was not, the question of jurisdiction had to be decided with reference to the fact that the acceptance of tender was issued from Delhi and, therefore, the Court at Delhi alone had jurisdiction and no other Court had jurisdiction." (i.e. para 17 and 21 of the judgment)." 27. The alternative submission made by the learned Advocate for the respondent No.4 is that even if the Gauhati High Court has the jurisdiction in view of clause 20 (3) of the Conditions of Contract, the Court at Gauhati shall have no jurisdiction and in this case he relies on (1989) 2 SCC 163 but that case does not help the respondent as the Supreme Court pointed out that when the parties transacted on the basis of a clause in the agreement, the clauses must be deemed to have formed part of the agreement and the parties would be bound by it. It was further pointed out by the Supreme Court that where the clause only specifies one of the two Courts having jurisdiction without specifically excluding jurisdiction of the other Court, both the Courts shall have jurisdiction. The. law has been laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 16 and 18 and in short the Supreme Court found as follows : "So long as the parties to a contract do not oust the jurisdiction of all the Court which would otherwise have jurisdiction to decide the cause of action under the law, it cannot be said that the parties have by their contract ousted the jurisdiction of the Court. Where there may be two or more competent Courts which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the cause of action having arisen there within, if the parties to the contract agreed to vest jurisdiction in one such Court to try the dispute which might arise as between themselves the agreement should be valid. Where there may be two or more competent Courts which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the cause of action having arisen there within, if the parties to the contract agreed to vest jurisdiction in one such Court to try the dispute which might arise as between themselves the agreement should be valid. If such a contract is clear, unambiguous and explicit and not vague it is not hit by sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act. This cannot be understood as parties contracting against the statute. Mercantile law and practice permit such agreements. The jurisdiction of the Court in matter of a contract will depend on the sites of the contract and the cause of action arising through connecting factors. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary a to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff." 28. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on the following decisions : AIR 1973 Gauhati 74 (M/s Kothari Plantations & Industries Ltd vs. Dakhinpat Satra & others). The facts in that case are as follows : "The defendant company carried on business at K and the Head Office at C, the plaintiff company which carried on business had entered into the agreement with the defendant at C for supply of goods at B. The plaintiff filed a suit at D Dibrugarh for recovery of money for goods supply, there was stipulation between the parties for payment. All the Court on consideration of the materials on record came to the finding that there was nothing to show that the payment was to be-made for the goods delivery in Cachar District, Digboy and Dibrugarh and in that view of the matter it was held that the Court at Digboy had no jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arises at Dibrugarh. This case is relied on by the learned Advocate on ground that in this case the goods will be purchased but also by the State of Assam and the payment will be made by the State of Assam but on bare perusal of the contract which shows that the payment which is would be made in Delhi. 29. The next case relied on by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in AIR 1992 Gauhati 42 (North Eastern Electricity Power Corporation Ltd vs. M/s Lakhi Enterprise & others) (1991 (1) GLJ 236). Therein a Single Judge of this Court has pointed out as follows : "Cause of action in part also arises at the place (i) where contract was made or (ii) where work under the contract was to be performed or goods were to be delivered or (iii) where money under the contract was required to be paid. That was the case where contract was entered into at the place where Electricity Power Corporation had its headquarters and the work of carriage of goods under the contract was performed by the plaintiff transporter in another State where the Corporation had its subordinate office, the cause of action for suit for recovery of amount under contract could be said to have arose in part at place where the work was performed and the High Court of that place had the territorial jurisdiction to try the matter." 30. Voluntarily resides, in section 20 of CPC does not refer to legal entity but to natural person. Voluntarily resides or personally works for gain cannot be applied to Govt. The Govt. however, when carry tin business and a suit can be filed against the Govt when the business is carried on at a particular place. In this particular case there is nothing to show that any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Govt. however, when carry tin business and a suit can be filed against the Govt when the business is carried on at a particular place. In this particular case there is nothing to show that any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. So, in that view of the matter, I uphold the preliminary objection of the respondent Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4-and reject this application on that ground alone. I have not decided anything on merit. 31. This dispose of the writ petition.