ORDER To quash the order dated 22.09.2014, as at Annexure-H, issued by the 1st respondent and asking for a mandamus not to implement the same, this writ petition was filed, by the petitioner, which participated in a tender proceeding, pursuant to the Tender Notice dated 04.02.2014, as at Annexure-B, issued by the 1st respondent, in the matter of supply of various sizes of LT cables at NAC Mumbai. The prequalification prescribed in Annexure-B is that the tender must be by the manufacturer or Authorized Dealer of having carried out similar nature of work. Petitioner claiming to be an Authorized Dealer of M/s. Havells India Limited, based on a Certificate dated 25.02.2014, claiming to be fulfilling the eligibility criteria, submitted its tender with the documents. Notice dated 03.09.2014 vide Annexure-F was served on the petitioner and was informed, that M/s. Havells India Limited, to which the Dealership Certificate produced by the petitioner was forwarded for verification, informed that the Dealership Certificate produced has not been issued by it and the petitioner was called upon to clarify on the aspect, latest by 20.09.2014. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted on 17.09.2014 vide Annexure-G, petitioner was served with Annexure-H, that no tender shall be issued to the petitioner by Airports Authority of India for any works in any of the Airports till a final decision is taken by competent Authority of Airports Authority of India in the matter of submission of forged Dealership Certificate. In pursuance of the same, petitioner was served with a communication dated 14.10.2014, as at Annexure-J, returning the DD dated 15.09.2014 of State Bank of Mysore and notifying the circumstance under which the work related to the notified tender could not be issued. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition was filed on 21.10.2014, seeking the reliefs, mentioned supra. 2. Since the tender notice vide Annexure-B was issued by the respondent No.1, at Mumbai, in the matter of supply of spare parts for day-to-day maintenance of Juhu Airport, ARSR PHHL Qtrs, Tx. Station, R/R Station and Outer Market, Mumbai during 201415 and the impugned decision, as at Annexure-H, was taken at Mumbai and as no part of cause of action has accrued in Karnataka, wherein, the petitioner carries on business, learned advocate was directed to address arguments, in the first instance, with regard to the territorial jurisdiction and maintainability of this writ petition, in this Court. 3. 3. Sri Vittala Shetty P., learned advocate, submitted that the petitioner is carrying on business in Bengaluru and that while submitting the tender, a Dealership Certificate, vide Annexure-D, issued at Bengaluru and the Demand Draft purchased at Bengaluru, were submitted to the 1st respondent, so also was the reply vide at Annexure-G to the Notice, as at Annexure-F, and since Annexure-H along with Annexure-J was received by the petitioner at Bengaluru, part of cause of action having been accrued in Bengaluru, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, even though the contesting respondents are having offices at Mumbai and New Delhi. 4. Under Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is empowered to issue writs or orders or directions to any Government, Authority or Person exercising jurisdiction in relation to a matter, if the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen, not withstanding that the Government, Authority or the residence of such Person is not within the territory of Karnataka State. 5. In UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. ADANI EXPORTS LTD. AND ANOTHER, (2002) 1 SCC 567 , Apex Court has held, that each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition in the context of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not ipsofacto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court’s territorial jurisdiction, unless those facts pleaded are such, which have nexus or relevance to the lis that is involved in the case and that the facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action, so as to confer the territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned. 6. In STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. M/s. SWAIKA PROPERTIES AND ANOTHER, (1985) 3 SCC 217 , certain properties belonging to a company, which had its registered office in Kolkata, was sought to be acquired in Jaipur and a notice under S.52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was served on the Company at Kolkata. 6. In STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. M/s. SWAIKA PROPERTIES AND ANOTHER, (1985) 3 SCC 217 , certain properties belonging to a company, which had its registered office in Kolkata, was sought to be acquired in Jaipur and a notice under S.52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was served on the Company at Kolkata. The question which arose for consideration was, whether service of notice at the Head Office of the Company at Kolkata could give rise to cause of action within the State of West Bengal to enable the Kolkata High Court to exercise jurisdiction in a matter, where challenge to acquisition proceedings conducted in Jaipur was made. In the said factual background, it was held that entire cause of action culminating in the acquisition of the land under S.52 of the Rajasthan Act arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan High Court and it was not necessary for the Company to plead service of notice upon them at Kolkata for grant of an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the notice issued under S.52 of the Act. It was thus held that the Kolkata High Court, wherein the writ petition was filed had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 7. In OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION Vs. UTPAL KUMAR BASU AND OTHERS, (1994) 4 SCC 711 , question of jurisdiction was considered by the Apex Court and it was held, that merely because writ petitioner submitted tender and made representations from Kolkata in response to an advertisement inviting tenders which were to be considered at New Delhi and the work was to be performed in Hazira (Gujarath) and also received replies to the fax message at Kolkata, could not constitute facts forming integral part of cause of action. It was further held, that the High Court could not assume jurisdiction on the ground that writ petitioner resides in or carries on business from a registered office in the state of West Bengal. 8. In EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. KALYAN BANERJEE, (2008) 3 SCC 456 , the respondent was an employee of appellant No.1, in the Mugma area, in the district of Dhanbad, Jharkand. The General Manager of the area, whose office is also situated at Mugma, was his appointing and disciplinary authority. 8. In EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. KALYAN BANERJEE, (2008) 3 SCC 456 , the respondent was an employee of appellant No.1, in the Mugma area, in the district of Dhanbad, Jharkand. The General Manager of the area, whose office is also situated at Mugma, was his appointing and disciplinary authority. The service of the respondent was terminated at Mugma and the respondent/employee filed a writ petition before the Kolkata High Court. As the writ petitioner was serving in Mugma area and the office of the General Manager was situated at Mugma, which is in the state of Jharkand, a preliminary objection was raised in regard to the jurisdiction of the Kolkata High Court. Considering the ‘cause of action’ for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and finding that the entire cause of action arose in Mugma area, within the state of Jharkand, it was held, that only because the Head Office of the appellant was situated in the state of West Bengal, the same by itself will not confer any jurisdiction upon the Kolkata High Court, particularly when the Head Office had nothing to do with the order of punishment passed against the respondent. 9. In the instant case, the contesting respondents are having offices at Mumbai and New Delhi. The tender notice, as at Annexure-B, was issued at Mumbai. Explanation vide Annexure-F, having been sought from Mumbai, petitioner sent reply vide Annexure-G and thereafter, the decision, as at Annexure-H, impugned in this writ petition, was taken at Mumbai and was served along with Annexure-J, on the petitioner. Indisputedly, supply of tendered items vide Annexure-B was to be made at Mumbai. 10. Mere fact that the petitioner carries on business at Bengaluru or its tender along with the Demand Draft and the Certificate, allegedly issued by an agent of respondent No.5, at Bengaluru, was sent from Bengaluru and the correspondence took place to the Bengaluru address, does not form integral part of the cause of action, in as much as, tender was floated at Mumbai, for supply of tendered materials for day to day maintenance of Juhu Airport, Mumbai. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition, in as much as, the facts giving rise to cause of action, which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in this case, has not arisen in Karnataka and has arisen only at Mumbai. Consequently, this writ petition cannot be entertained. In the result, the writ petition is rejected. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Court, within whose jurisdiction, the fundamental facts giving rise to cause of action has arisen and seek remedy, if any.