( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to cancel and/or rescind/revoke the order dated 28. 4. 2006 as contained in Annexure 'p-6' whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner, was rejected thereby upholding the order of dismissal from service, passed on 2. 11. 93 by the Commandant 83 Bn. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his service. Other consequential prayers have been made but it isinot necessary to record each and every one of them. ( 3 ) BEFORE proceeding, it is necessary to point out that the petitioner has himself clearly stated in Paragraph-4 of the writ petition that while he was in service at Meerut in Uttar Pradesh, an enquiry was conducted. Thus, it is evident that the entire cause of action is in Meerut in the State of U. P. This was pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset but he insisted that in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court in C. O. No. 3551 (W) of 19j)4 and W. P. No. 9706 (W) of 2002, this Court would still have jurisdiction to deal with the issues involved in this case. ( 4 ) THIS Court is not inclined to accept such submissions of the learned counsel. No doubt, on the earlier occasions, two orders were passed, but none of them were on merits. The point relating to territorial jurisdiction, and/or inherent lack of jurisdiction does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the court on the earlier occasions. The first order was passed on 25. 03. 1998 in c. O. No. 3551 (W) of 1994 and the relevant portion thereof which indicates that this Court did not enter into the merits reads as follows: -"the grievance of the writ petitioner is that he has been dismissed illegally, of course, after the purported domestic proceeding was held. Against this order of dismissal he could not prefer any appeal within the time as he was ignorant about the passing of this order of dismissal. Against this order of dismissal he could not prefer any appeal within the time as he was ignorant about the passing of this order of dismissal. Accordingly, after expiry of prescribed period of limitation as provided under the rule, an appeal has been preferred to the appellate authority, namely, Deputy Inspector General, Headquarter, 83, Battalion. The said appeal has not been disposed of. I am of the view that the appeal should be heard by the appellate authority without bothering about the question of delay, since it is a question of dismissal. Therefore, the limitation of on ground of delay of one or two months in preferring the appeal is insignificant in this case. Accordingly, I direct the Deputy Inspector General or any other competent appellate authority shall entertain the appeal dated 24th january, 1994, at page 15 of the writ petition and hear the same in accordance with law. At the time of hearing of the appeal the writ petitioner and/or his authorized agent shall be given an opportunity of being heard. The writ petitioner will be entitled to canvass all the points agitated in this writ petition apart from the points taken in the appeal itself. This appeal shall be heard within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order and pass a reasoned order. This application is, thus, disposed of. " [sic] ( 5 ) THE second order was passed on 01. 02. 2006 in W. P. No. 9706 (W)-3551 (W) of 2002 and the relevant portion thereof which indicates that this court AGAIN did not enter into the merits but disposed off the same as per the submission/agreement of the learned Counsel who was appearing for the respondents, reads as follows: -"mr. Pradip Kumar Sen, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has handed over a xerox copy of the written instruction which is kept on record. Mr. Sen on instruction submits that the respondent authority, wishes to withdraw the order impugned appearing at pages 26 to 29 of the writ petition. The authority is ready and willing to consider the issue de novo by giving personal hearing to the writ petitioner. The order impugned dated August 7,1998 is treated as withdrawn by the respondent authority. Mr. Sen on instruction submits that the respondent authority, wishes to withdraw the order impugned appearing at pages 26 to 29 of the writ petition. The authority is ready and willing to consider the issue de novo by giving personal hearing to the writ petitioner. The order impugned dated August 7,1998 is treated as withdrawn by the respondent authority. The respondent authority is directed to give personal hearing to the writ petitioner or his authorized representative and pass a reasoned order as directed earlier, to be communicated to the concerned writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The respondent authority before giving personal hearing must furnish copies of the relevant documents as asked for by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. " [sic] ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this Court has no hesitation in holding that this case cannot! be agitated before this Court notwithstanding the earlier orders passed as it lacks inherent jurisdiction in entertaining this writ petition. ( 7 ) IN that view of the matter, this Court refuses to enter into the merits of the case inspite of the insistence of the learned Counsel for the petitioner because, if, after having held "lack of jurisdiction", this Court still proceeds to deal with the merits, it would be totally improper. Secondly, it might prejudice the case of the petitioner in the event he chooses to move the appropriate court having territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case. For the forgoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. However, this dismissal will not prevent the petitioner from moving an appropriate Court/forum having territorial jurisdiction to deal and decide the case. No order as to costs.