( 1 ) IN the instant writ petition under challenge are two notices issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (I) Jharkhand. The first notiqe is dated 22. 3. 06 in which the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have been directed to make payment of certain dues of the petitioner-Company for the period between 1991-92 to 1995-96. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 2 has been issued notice to show-cause as to why warrant of Arrest should not be issued. The latter notice is dated 9th November, 2006 and has been made annexure "p3" to the writ petition. This notice is based on the allegation that he did not pay the arrears specified in two certificates. ( 2 ) THIS matter was originally moved on 23rd March, 2007 upon notice but no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. On that date an interim order for a limited period was passed, directing the respondents not to take any further step in pursuance of the notice dated 9th November, 2006. The interim order was subsequently extended on 26. 3. 07 and 30. 3. 07 again with limited duration. On 26. 3. 07, I had directed service afresh on respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. ( 3 ) ON 30th March, 2007 Mr. Kundu appeared for the said respondents and sought some time to seek instruction. Accordingly, the interim order was directed to be extended till 3rd April, 2007. ( 4 ) WHEN the matter was called on today Mr. Kundu had taken a preliminary objection on the ground that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition in view of the fact that none of the respondents have their offices within the jurisdiction of this Court and no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. ( 5 ) AS I have observed earlier, legality of the notices addressed to the directors of the petitioner-Company relating to allegations of default in payment of provident in respect of their unit in the State of Jharkhand has been questioned. The main respondents are all statutory authorities having their offices outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The dues which form the subject-matter of the present proceedings are also in respect of units of the undertaking which were located in the State of jharkhand (erstwhile State of Bihar ). ( 6 ) MR. The main respondents are all statutory authorities having their offices outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The dues which form the subject-matter of the present proceedings are also in respect of units of the undertaking which were located in the State of jharkhand (erstwhile State of Bihar ). ( 6 ) MR. Pal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the registered office of the petitioner-Company was within the jurisdiction of this Court and the Company was being managed by a committee of management appointed by this Court in exercise of its company jurisdiction. The impugned notices also were served at the premises situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. On the strength of these facts, he argued that part of cause of action a part of the cause of action pertaining to the instant writ petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. ( 7 ) ON merit he submitted that although admittedly the petitioners were directors of the Company about a decade back they were unjustly being pressurized to pay up the dues of the Company which arose, it at all long back. ( 8 ) THE main question which falls for determination is as to whether the notices which ate impugned in the writ petition, on the strength of being served within the jurisdiction of this Court could create cause of action or part thereof so as to entitle the petitioners to maintain the present writ petition. ( 9 ) I have considered the rival submissions. Location of Head Quarter of the Company within the jurisdiction of this Court or the fact that the company is being run by a Board of Management appointed by this Court by itself in my opinion cannot create any cause of action or part thereof so far as the present writ petition is concerned. ( 10 ) THE causes of action of the instant proceedings, being the issuance of notice to show-cause as to why shall not be issued Warrant of arrest and raising of demand, have taken place within the State of jharkhand. What has been received by the petitioners within the jurisdiction of this Court is communication of the cause of action. The receipt of these notices by itself, does not create any cause of action or part thereof. What has been received by the petitioners within the jurisdiction of this Court is communication of the cause of action. The receipt of these notices by itself, does not create any cause of action or part thereof. ( 11 ) UNDER the circumstances, I dismiss this writ petition on the preliminary objection taken by the respondents that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand or any other forum as they may be advised for redressal of their grievances on the basis of which the instant writ petition was moved. ( 13 ) I also make it clear that I have not gone into the questions of merit in the present writ petition. All points on merit are kept open for adjudication. This writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. .