JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.- The petitioner rendered unblemished service of 17 years in the Border Security Force. He proceeded on 15 days casual leave with effect from 17th March, 2003, which was duly sanctioned by the authority with permission to prefix 16th March, 2003 being Sunday. While on leave, in the end of March, he suffered from acute viral Hepatitis and was treated by doctors at Aligarh i.e. his home town. He was advised bed rest for 5 days on 31st March, 2003. He was advised bed rest for further 15 days on 5th April, 2003. On 7th April, 2003, he sent an intimation to the Commandant along with medical prescription slips. In June, 2003, the petitioner received memo informing him that he overstayed his leave and was directed to join his duty immediately. The petitioner sent his reply to the Commandant on 8th June, 2003 praying to permit the petitioner to rejoin after he is being declared fit to resume duty. Show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 9th June, 2003. On 21st June, 2006, the petitioner informed the Commandant, 39 BN, BSF that he was still undergoing treatment and was not fit to resume duty. Prescription slips recommending the bed rest upto 16th July, 2003 was sent along with the reply. The respondents passed an order of dismissal on 18th. July, 2003, which was received by the petitioner on 21st July, 2003. Final Medical certificate was issued to the petitioner by the doctor on 15th August, 2003. The petitioner submitted an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General, BSF IIC Sambha (Sector) Jammu on 6th September, 2003. He had also sent a reminder on 27th October. 2003 through his Counsel. Thereafter, reminders were sent on 8th December, 2003, 24th January, 2004, 26th January, 2004 and 3rd March, 2004. On 12th April, 2004, Deputy Commandant (ADM), IG HQ informed the petitioner that his appeal was dismissed. The order of dismissal dated 18th July, 2003 passed by the Commandant 39 BN BSF C/o 56 A.P.O. and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 12th April, 2004 communicated by the Deputy Commandant (ADM), IG HQ BSF Jammu have been challenged in the present writ petition. 2. The respondents have, at the very outset, raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present petition before this Court on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 3. 2. The respondents have, at the very outset, raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present petition before this Court on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 3. From the record of the Court, it is clear that the order of dismissal was passed by the authorities at Jammu the petitioner had filed an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force, Samba Sector at Jammu and the appeal was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General at Jammu. Intimation regarding illness of petitioner was also sent at Jammu. In view of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents, it is not necessary for us to examine the merit of this case. The entire cause of action had arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The substantive prayer of the petitioner is also directed against the two impugned orders, which have been passed by the authorities at Jammu. Obviously, the entire record of the case is at Jammu. The present writ petition would not be maintainable before this Court on mere impleadment of Union of India or Director General, Border Security Force without claiming any relief against them or questioning any of their actions or orders. 4. The arguments raised by either party in relation to question of jurisdiction are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court of even date in the case of Ex. Rect.GD Vinod Kumar v. Union of India and Others, 135 (2006) DLT 414 (DB)=W.P.(C) No. 13560/06, which may be read as part of this judgment. 5. The undisputed facts as stated on record clearly demonstrate that no cause of action or even a fraction thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The respondents against whom relief is claimed are not located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Consequently, we are of the considered view that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ Petition dismissed.