Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the above mentioned petitioner challenging the letter written by the Cane Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to the Cane Commissioner, Bihar on 27-10-1998 putting some restrictions on the functioning of the different sugar factories situated within the State of Bihar (Annexure-8) and also the direction given by the Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar within the State of U.P, dated 2-11-1998 to the Officer Incharges of different police station of the disputed areas in respect of the areas covered in this writ petition situated within the State of Bihar (Annexure-9) and also some other developments which had accrued during the pendency of this writ petition. 2. To appreciate the crux of dispute in this writ petition some factual aspects and the history behind it requires to be reiterated. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act having its sugar factory at Harakhua situated within the district of Goaplganj in the State of Bihar. Its main function is to manufacture sugar after purchasing sugar cane from the cane growers Co-operative Societies and other sources. The purchase of sugar cane by the sugar factories are regulated under the provisions of an Act known as Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 and the Cane Commissioner of Bihar is the regulating authority under the Act itself. There are provisions under the Act as to how licence is to be issued for crushing canes in sugar factories and regarding establishment of purchasing centres for the purpose of collection of sugar cane for the factories and also reserved area for the purpose. The said provision of the Act shall be referred, if necessary, during the course of discussion of the relevant features of this writ petition. Dhanha area which is a sugar cane growing area situated within the State of Bihar is in the extreme boundary of the State of U.P. being surrounded by two rivers and practically it has got no outlet regarding despatch of its sugarcane except being taken the help of the Railway stations situated at Dudhahi and Taraiya Sujan within the State of U.P. and for that reason for the purpose of proper growing of the sugar Industry there were meetings between the top heads of the two states. A joint meeting of the sugar Boards of U.P. and Bihar was held at Patna which was attended by the Chief Ministers of both the States and the respective cane Commissioner all the cane development or supply of sugar canes were resolved and agreed upon between the two States and such resolution/agreement has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. On 3-2-1964 again a joint meeting of the Cane Commissioners of U. P. and Bihar was held at Lucknow and a decision on the aspect of the allotment of sugar cane grown in the border areas of two states amongst the sugar factories situated on the border areas of U. P. and Bihar was taken, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner pursuant to the above decisions ointly taken by the top heads of the two States, sugar factories of Bihar had been purchasing their sugar cane allotted by the cane Commissioner, Bihar grown in Dhanha region of the State of Bihar by establishing purchasing centres at the Railway stations of Dudhahi and Taraiya Sujan and such arrangements were continuing for the last 20 years and became a customary right in favour of the petitioner and such other companies situated within the border areas of the State of Bihar. On 6-11-1993 the Cane Commissioner, Bihar issued orders regarding allotment of sugar cane grown in Dhanha region and also in U.P. to the sugar factories of Bihar and requested the Divisional Superintendent of N.E. Railway, Varanasi, U.P. to make arrangement of. Such letter has been annexed as Annexure-3 to he writ petition. On 6-11-1993 the Cane Commissioner, Bihar issued orders regarding allotment of sugar cane grown in Dhanha region and also in U.P. to the sugar factories of Bihar and requested the Divisional Superintendent of N.E. Railway, Varanasi, U.P. to make arrangement of. Such letter has been annexed as Annexure-3 to he writ petition. This letter of the Cane Commissioner, Bihar had been challenged by M/s United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd. P.O. Sheorahi, District Deoria U.P. in a writ petition before Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench That writ petition was heard extensively wherein not only the Cane Commissioner, Bihar appeared but the present writ petitioner alongwith other such sugar factories of Bihar had also intervened and the writ petition was extensively heard by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench and ultimately the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 18-3-1994 and it was held in the interest of justice that the Bihar Sugar factorires because of the peculiar geographical position should be allowed to operate Rail purchasing centres at Taraiya Sujart and Dudhahi for loading of sugar cane grown in the Dhanha region of the State of Bihar. In the light of the direction of the two Cane Commissioners of U.P., and Bihar as per Annexure-4 of the writ petition such agreement arrived at between the two Commissioners had been taken note of by the Allahabad High Court while disposing of the above mentioned writ petition. Thus according to the petitioner as per the agreement arrived at as contained in Annexure-6 dated 26-10-1994 and 27-10-1994 Bihar Sugar factories were allowed to operate the purchasing centres situated at Dudhahi and Taraiya Sujan. There was an observation by the Allahabad High Court in the above mentioned writ petition that time has come when the authorities of both the State should sit together to find out a permanent solution regarding the vexed problem. There was an observation by the Allahabad High Court in the above mentioned writ petition that time has come when the authorities of both the State should sit together to find out a permanent solution regarding the vexed problem. According to the petitioner the agreement entered into in the year 1994 which has been taken note of by the Allahabad High Court had been reiterated again in the year 1995 regarding operating of the purchase centre at two Railway stations as mentioned above by the sugar factories of Bihar regarding the sugar cane of Dhanha region but then on 27-10-1998, Annexure-8 was issued by the Cane Commissioner U.P. asking the Cane Commissioner, Bihar to restrain the Bihar sugar factorires to open up of purchasing centres for purchasing of sugar cane grown in Dhanha area at Dudhahi and Taraiya sujan and police authorities of U.P. were also asked to see that no sugar mill of Bihar can be allowed to purchase cane from the railway purchasing centres at Dudhahi and Taraiya Sujan and on the basis of Annexures-8 and 9 direction was issued by the S.P. Kushi Nagar which has been marked as Annexure-9. On subsequent dates during the pendency of this writ petition several other correspondences were also made by the District Magistrate of Kushi Nagar to the counter part at the District of Goaplganj strictly prohibiting to establishing any purchase centre within the areas of Dudhahi and Taraiya Sujan. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that Annexure-8 and 9 and the subsequent correspondences and restraint orders issued by the U.P. authorities including the Cane Commissioner of U. P. are totally in contravention of the earlier observation and direction of the Allahabad High Court in the writ petition as mentioned above and that such actions of the U.P. officials are contemptuous and against the long standing agreement arrived at between the parties. So the dispute is with respect of opening up of purchasing centre by the sugar factories of Bihar within the vicinity of the railway station situated at Dudhahi and Taraiya Sujan within the territory of U.P. itself. So the dispute is with respect of opening up of purchasing centre by the sugar factories of Bihar within the vicinity of the railway station situated at Dudhahi and Taraiya Sujan within the territory of U.P. itself. No where in the restraint orders as were issued by the official of the U.P. it reveals that any bar have been created regarding loading and weighing of sugar cane of Dhanha area at the existing purchasing centres near the railway stations situated within the State of U.P. only bar has been created in opening up of purchasing centres within the region of U. P. by the Bihar Sugar Factorires and also making any purchases by the sugar factories within the territory of U.P. by taking advantage of loading and poaching at the purchase centres within the territory of U.P. and whereby there is not only apprehension but allegation that the Bihar Sugar Factories are purchasing the sugar canes grown within the territory of U.P. also being to the purchasing centres within those two railway stations. The Cane Commissioner of Bihar has put in appearance in this writ petition and practically supported the case of the writ petition. While officials of U.P. appeared and filed counter affidavits wholly challenging the writ petition together with maintainability of the same and also the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. In the counter affidavit filed the U.P. authorities have vehemently opposed the contention of the writ petitioner to the effect that the territory of U.P. is governed by the U.P. Sugar Cane (Regulations of Supply & Purchase) Rules, 1954. Under those provisions there is no scope for any other State even if the adjoining one to open up a purchasing centre within the territory of U.P. These points were considered by the Division Bench judgment of the Lucknow Bench in details in writ Petition No. 5645 of 1993. Under those provisions there is no scope for any other State even if the adjoining one to open up a purchasing centre within the territory of U.P. These points were considered by the Division Bench judgment of the Lucknow Bench in details in writ Petition No. 5645 of 1993. The legal fiction arose regarding the Clauses 5(10), 5(11), 5(19) were considered in details and only after consideration of the geographical situation of the Dhanha region of Bihar where sugar cane were grown in abundence having no outlet were given the permission to use the purchasing centres of those Railway stations, namely, Dudhahi and Taraiya Sujan for the purpose of weighing and loading and in that way the present writ petition filed is in total contravention of whatever has been observed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and also the terms and conditions arrived at on January 4, 1994 and it has already been stated that such agreement had never given any option or authority to the Bihar Sugar factories to open up any purchasing centre within the territory of U.P. Everything regardig the allotment of the reserved area within the Dhanha region should be done by the Bihar Sugar factorires before entering into the territory of U.P. and then for the purpose of loading in the railway station at Dudhahi and Teriya Sujan the purchasing centre could be used for the purpose of loading and weighing only. It has also been vehementaly averred that Patna High Court can have no jurisdiction when challenge has been made regarding Annexure-8 and Annexure-9 which were issued by the U.P. authority to protect their interest and guidance has been given to the Officers of U.P. and only because the letter at Annexure-8 has been addressed to the Cane Commissioner, Bihar does not give any jurisdiction to the writ petitioner to raise his grievances before this Court. At the very outset this Court is first of all to decide whether it has got any jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. The territorial jurisdiction has been defined under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India itself. At the very outset this Court is first of all to decide whether it has got any jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. The territorial jurisdiction has been defined under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India itself. Such right conferred under Art. 226 can be exercised by any High Court having 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 the Government or the authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. 5. Petitioners contention is that although Annexure-8 relates to the territorial area of U.P. but the contents of the same has affected the rights of sugar factory including that of the petitioner situated within the Border area of Bihar and hence such debarring order passed by the UP. Commissioner had taken away the rights or infringed the rights of the writ petitioner situated within the territory of Bihar and hence even if the letter has been issued by the U.P. Commissioner this Court has got jurisdiction. On the other hand it is the contention of the Senior Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the State of U.P. that the earlier writ petition was also with respect to some sort of fiction and feud between the two Cane Commissioners and also the Bihar Sugar factorires and the U.P. Sugar Factorires in the nearby areas and the same was entertained in the Allahabad High Court because the place with which the dispute has arisen or had arisen completely rests within the State of U.P. whose jurisdiction is of Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). The petitioner in the earlier writ petition had intervened in that writ petition and after extensive hearing the same writ petition has been disposed of any practically on some observation of the judgment of that writ petition the present writ petitioner has the grievance that Annexure-8, Annexure-9 and the subsequent orders passed by the Kushi Nagar officials had violated the orders of the Lucknow Bench and as the same became a contemptuous one and in that way it is submitted by Mr. Ram Balak Mahto senior Counsel for the respondent (U.P. State) that if the petitioner feels that any contempt has been done by the Cane Commissioner of U.P. and other officials of U.P. then a contempt petition could have been filed by the petitioner before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court but in no case when the areas or the territory over which the matter of feud exists is completely within the jurisdiction of State of U.P. and under Allahabad High Court then Patna High Court can have no jurisdiction. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the Senior Counsel of both the parties i.e. Mr. Y.V. Giri and Mr. Ram Balak Mahto I have carefully gone through all the documents and the reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner. The admitted position remains that the area i.e. Dudhahi and Taraiya Sujan including the Railway Stations are situated within the State of U.P. Dhanha region is within the State of Bihar which is sugar cane growing area, The sugar cane of this area are being purchased by the Sugar factories of Bihar but as there is no outlet of this region to take away canes to the factories of Bihar, the area of Dudhahi and Taraiya Sujan including their Railway stations are to be used. In such position the dispute remains with regard to he purchasing centre whether can be opened by the State of Bihar or the Sugar factories of Bihar within the territory of U.P. or not. On the plaint consideration definitely Bihar Court or the Patna High Court cannot have any jurisdiction if any circular or restraint order is being passed by the U.P. Authorities specifically the Cane Commissioner of U.P. Because the U.P. authorities have got every right to pass any order debarring others in respect of their territory. If anybody feels aggrieved they can raise this question or their grievances before the appropriate forum within the State of U.P. itself. The contention of Mr. Giri is that the debarring order and the restraint order and the coercive orders passed by the U. P. Officials had infringed the right of freedom of trade guaranteed by the constitution to the writ petitioner under Art. 19 of the Constitution of India and when such infringement is there they have got every right to come up under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Definitely they can come but to which High Court is only the question. No letter nothing of the sort has been issued by the U.P. officials or the Cane Commissioner of U.P. addressing the writ petitioner or any of the Sugar Factories of Bihar. it has only restrained that the Sugar factories of Bihar should not be allowed to open up any Purchasing centres within their territory or purchase the sugar cane grown in U.P. by opening purchasing centre within their territory. In that way, in my considered, view even if the rights of the writ petitioner had been infringed then such infringement can be challenged under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India before the Allahabad High Court more specifically at the Lucknow Bench and this becomes clear when the same matter has been agitated twice before the Lucknow Bench wherein the petitioner was also a party. Mr. Giri has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court as reported in 1997 (2) PUR 595 (Brig. Ashok Malhotra V/s. Union of India). The facts of that case are totally different. A writ petition was filed by Brig. Ashok Malhotra against the Union of India challenging the (sic) order issued to him. Such letter was issued by the New Delhi office and as the petitioner was then residing at Danapur within the State of Bihar which was received by him at Danapur and then the writ petition was filed before this Court. A single Bench had rejected the writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The Division Bench held that as the letter had been received by the writ petitioner at Danapur within the State of Bihar then this High Court has got jurisdiction but the present case cannot have any bearing with that rulling. No where the petitioner was a party to any communication at any of the Annexures annexures annexed with the writ petition. The Cane Commissioner of Bihar has not raised objection or filed any writ petition when Annexure-8 was addressed to him but as he was made party he had supported the claim of the writ petitioner but by this alone the writ petitioner cannot get any jurisdiction. The Cane Commissioner of Bihar has not raised objection or filed any writ petition when Annexure-8 was addressed to him but as he was made party he had supported the claim of the writ petitioner but by this alone the writ petitioner cannot get any jurisdiction. It may be that the debarring order regarding purchasing centre in those areas of the State of U.P. might have caused inconvenience to the writ petitioner but that inconvenience cannot give a jurisdiction regarding part of the cause of action arising within the State of Bihar. Another judgment has been referred to as reported in (1994)4 SCC 711 (Oil and Natural Gas Commission V/s. Uttpal Kr. Basil). In that case an advertisement was made by the ONGC inviting tender at Delhi and the same was published in the newspapers at Calcutta. The petitioner Uttpal Kumar Basu and others of that writ petition submitted tenders and also made representations from Calcutta against the non-consideration of their offers and then the writ petition was filed in the Calcutta High Court. A broad based discussion was made by the Apex Court on consideration of Sections 20, 21 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Art. 226 (2) and 136 of the Constitution of India and held that by merely residence of a petitioner within its territorial jurisdiction can never give jurisdiction of the High Court if no part of cause of action arisen within the territory of that High Court. I have already held that the territory over which feud is there is situated within the State of U.P. and thus even if, the petitioner feels aggrieved by any orders passed or any communication made addressing the Cane Commissioner of Bihar cannot give any territorial jurisdiction to the petitioner to file writ petition before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I hereby hold that this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. 7. Although the writ petition can be disposed of on the jurisdictional point alone as mentioned above but I take up for discussion the factual aspects also. Hence, I hereby hold that this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. 7. Although the writ petition can be disposed of on the jurisdictional point alone as mentioned above but I take up for discussion the factual aspects also. By referring to some observations in the long judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in writ Petition No. 5645/1993 the writ petitioner had submitted that unless a purchasing centre is being established by the Bihar Sugar Factories at Dudhai and taraiya Sujan then there remains no scope for the petitioner to utilise/operate purchasing center in that area. The reference may be made to provisions of Clause 5(10) of the U.P. Regulations as mentioned above. The observations made here and there practically does not give any right to the petitioner to say that they have been given the right to open up purchasing centre within the territory of U.P. After consideration of all the materials and submissions made by ail the parties including that of the petitioner it appears at page 41 of the judgment as annexed it was clearly stated that there should be no purchase of sugarcane at the purchases centre so that there may be no poaching of sugarcane allotted. Lastly in page 42 it has been clearly observed in the following manner:- - "Therefore, in our opinion it will be in the interest of justice that the Bihar Sugar factories are allowed to operate the railway purchase centres at Taraiya Sujan and Dudhai Railway stations for the loading of sugarcane grown in Dhanaha region of Bihar in accordance with the directions contained in the orders of the Cane Commissioners of U. P. and Bihar dated January, 4, 1994." I have already stated that in that joint direction there are four clauses and no where it is there that any purchasing centres can be opened by the Bihar Sugar factories within the territory of State of U.P. may be the border area of Dudhai and Taraiya Sujan. In that way also on factual aspect I do not find that there is an scope to give any relief to the petitioner in this writ petition. 8 Thus, the writ petition is dismissed. The earlier order of stay passed by Benches of this Court are hereby discharged. No cost to any party.