Judgment 1. Considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, we allow the application. 2. The only point in this appeal is that the High Court of Judicature at Patna did not have jurisdiction to interfere with the order of blacklisting passed by the State of Jharkhand, inasmuch as no part of the cause of action in relation to the said order did arise within any part of the State of Bihar. 3. It appears to be the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the notice calling upon the writ petitioner- respondent to show cause was issued from the State of Jharkhand, though served in the State of Bihar and similarly, the show cause thereto was written from the State of Bihar but served in the State of Jharkhand. It was contended that the decision to blacklist was taken in the State of Jharkhand but not served upon the writ petitioner-respondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the proceeding to blacklist was initiated in respect of certain actions of the writ petitioner- respondent in relation to works contract floated and settled in the State of Jharkhand. In the circumstances, it was stated that no part of the cause of action pertaining to the decision to Blacklist the writ petitioner- respondent arose within the State of Bihar. 4. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petition was a decision of the State of Bihar through which it was communicated to the respondent-writ petitioner that his registration as a contractor of the State of Bihar is not being renewed for he has been blacklisted by the State of Jharkhand. While challenging the said decision of the State of Bihar, it was contended by the writ petitioner- respondent in the writ petition that, in fact, no decision has been taken by the State of Jharkhand to blacklist the writ petitioner-respondent. This assertion could only be made by the writ petitioner- respondent in the presence of the State of Jharkhand and accordingly, in the writ petition presence of the State of Jharkhand was a necessity. In the absence of the State of Jharkhand, the writ petitioner-respondent could not obtain the relief that he was seeking. 5. This assertion could only be made by the writ petitioner- respondent in the presence of the State of Jharkhand and accordingly, in the writ petition presence of the State of Jharkhand was a necessity. In the absence of the State of Jharkhand, the writ petitioner-respondent could not obtain the relief that he was seeking. 5. While notice of the writ petition was given to the State of Jharkhand, it did not say that it has not taken a decision to blacklist the writ petitioner-respondent. On the other land, it accepted that it has taken such a decision and has communicated the same to the State of Bihar for its knowledge. In view of such stand taken by the State of Jharkhand, the stand taken by the State of Bihar could not be interfered with, for it cannot be said that a State will ha ve business activities with a contractor who has been blacklisted by another State. Therefore, while the State of Jharkhand supplied the information to the State of Bihar within the State of Bihar, the same affected the petitioner-respondent within the State of Bihar and accordingly, a part of cause of action did arise within the jurisdiction of this Court. It was not a mere information of a decision to blacklist taken in the State of Jharkhand, which was communicated to the Slate of Bihar. The State of Bihar was informed about the said decision within the State of Bihar in order to enable the State of Bihar to take a decision on the basis thereof in relation to the writ petitioner-respondent. Squarely, therefore, part of the cause of action for the writ petition did arise within the jurisdiction of this Court and once a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Court had every power o go into the validity of the information, in other words into its substance it went into the question and found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no such decision could be taken. It found as a fact that no notice in the eye of law was given before blacklisting the writ petitioner-respondent, for while calling for the informations, the consequences of not furnishing the informations had not been indicated. It found as a fact that no notice in the eye of law was given before blacklisting the writ petitioner-respondent, for while calling for the informations, the consequences of not furnishing the informations had not been indicated. It found that when the writ petitioner-respondent in reply to the queries indicated that he did not participate in the subject works contract, being the subject matter of the informations that had been sought for, neither in the decision to blacklist, nor in the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition it was urged that the contentions in the reply of the writ petitioner-respondent were untrue. As a consequence, the Court had to pronounce that the State of Bihar could not aet on the basis of such information given by the State of Jharkhand for the informations have no legs to stand. They are imperfect and incorrect. That is why the Court directed the State of Bihar not to act on the basis of the subject information supplied by the State of Jharkhand. 6. It is that information of blacklisting supplied to the State of Bihar knowingfully well that the same would affect the writ petitioner-respondent in the form of follow up action to be taken by the State of Bihar on the basis of such information, a part of the cause of action did arise within the State of Bihar and accordingly, this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 7. There being no other grievance in the appeal, as the appellant is not challenging the order on its merits, we have nothing further to be done in the appeal, the same is accordingly, dismissed.