ORDER : Prashant Kumar, J. In this writ application, the petitioner challenged two demand notices dated 22.05.2015 and 10.8.2015 respectively, whereby the Respondent No. 2, the General Manager (S&M), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, raised a demand of Rs. 17,90,541.85 paise for non-lifting of coal, as per Clause 4.5.1 of the Fuel Supply Agreement (Annexure-2). 2. At the outset, Sri Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present dispute arose due to invocation of Clause 4.5 of the Fuel Supply Agreement by the Respondent no.2, because the petitioner had not lifted the entire quantity of coal mentioned in the aforesaid Agreement. He further submits that the petitioner was required to lift the coal from the territory of State of Orissa. He further submits that the impugned demand notices issued from the State of Orissa. He then submits that the said demand notices served upon the petitioner at Kolkata. It is further submitted that the office of the respondent No. 2 situates at Sambalpur, Orissa and the entire cause of action also arose either in Orissa or Kolkata, thus, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ application. He further submits that since the dispute arose from Fuel Supply Agreement, therefore, as per Clause 18.4 of the Agreement, the Sambalpur Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Accordingly, it is submitted that writ application is liable to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 3. On the other hand, Sri Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ application, because as per the amended Fuel Supply Agreement (Annexure-15), the place of business of the petitioner situates in the district of Koderma, Jharkhand. He further submits that the respondent no.2 sent the demand notices (Annexure-16 and 17) at Kolkata, on the address of M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog. It is submitted that M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog sent above demand notices to the petitioner at Giridih. Thus, the petitioner received the demand notices in Giridih. Therefore, part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. It is further submitted that though, petitioner used to lift coal from the State of Orissa but it utilised the same in the State of Jharkhand. Thus, the petitioner received the demand notices in Giridih. Therefore, part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. It is further submitted that though, petitioner used to lift coal from the State of Orissa but it utilised the same in the State of Jharkhand. Thus, demanding compensation for non-lifting of the coal also gives rise to cause of action at Jharkhand, because the said coal had not been utilised in the State of Jharkhand. It is submitted that the petitioner filed a writ application in this court for quashing the order issued by the Central Government, whereby it suspended its approval for change of name in the coal linkage order. It is stated that in the said writ application M/s. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited was one of the party respondent and a direction issued against it for resuming the supply of coal after completing the necessary formalities. Accordingly, it is submitted that the above facts also shows that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ application. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present writ application is maintainable. 4. Having heard the submissions of both the parties, I have gone through the records of the case. 5. It appears that petitioner has purchased the properties of M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog. Thereafter, the coal supply linkage has been transferred in the name of the petitioner. It then appears that after the transfer of name of petitioner in the coal linkage the Fuel Supply Agreement amended by executing an amendment agreement. According to amended agreement, the terms and conditions of Fuel Supply Agreement dated 30.04.2008 between MCL and M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog will remain the part and parcel of amended agreement. 6. The respondent no.2 had issued two demand notices (Annexures-16 and 17) under Clause 4.5.1 of the Agreement for payment of compensation, because the petitioner had not lifted entire quantity of coal mentioned in the Fuel Supply Agreement. Admittedly, Annexures-16 and 17, the impugned demand notices were issued from the Sambalpur, Orissa. In the said notices address of the petitioner was mentioned as follows :- To, M/s. Shivam Iron & Steel Ltd. (Formerly Laxmi Ispat Udyog) 71, BRB Basu Road, Bagree Market, Block-B, Room No. 404, Kolkata-700001 7. It is also admitted by the petitioner that the said notices were received at Kolkata. In the said notices address of the petitioner was mentioned as follows :- To, M/s. Shivam Iron & Steel Ltd. (Formerly Laxmi Ispat Udyog) 71, BRB Basu Road, Bagree Market, Block-B, Room No. 404, Kolkata-700001 7. It is also admitted by the petitioner that the said notices were received at Kolkata. However, in the rejoinder, the petitioner stated that the said notices were received by M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog at Kolkata and thereafter it sent the notices to the petitioner at Giridih, through Annexures-21 series. Accordingly, it is stated that the said notices received by the petitioner at Giridih. It is also an admitted position that petitioner used to lift coal from the Orissa. It also used to pay the price of the coal at Orissa. As per Clause 4.5.1 of the Agreement, if petitioner will not lift 100% coal allocated to it, he is liable to pay compensation to the respondents. Thus, non-lifting of coal from the Orissa is the reason for issuance of impugned demand notices. 8. Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India runs as follows : "The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories." 9. According to the aforesaid provisions, a High Court can entertain a writ application within whose territorial jurisdiction, cause of action wholly and partly arose notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority, who issued orders, is not within its territories. Thus, from perusal of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the place of residence or location of the person affected by the order is going to do nothing with the entertainment of the writ application. In my view only such High Court has power to entertain writ application, in whose jurisdiction the entire cause of action or part of the cause of action arose. 10. As noticed above, in the instant case, demand notices were issued from Sambalpur, Orissa and served at Kolkata on the address mentioned in the said notices. In my view only such High Court has power to entertain writ application, in whose jurisdiction the entire cause of action or part of the cause of action arose. 10. As noticed above, in the instant case, demand notices were issued from Sambalpur, Orissa and served at Kolkata on the address mentioned in the said notices. It is admitted by the petitioner that from Kolkata, it was served upon the petitioner at Giridi by M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog. Thus, it appears that petitioner has internal arrangement with M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog for sending the letters or consignments received at Kolkata, in the name of petitioner to Giridih. Thus, for all practical purpose, in my view, M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog is acting as an agent of the petitioner for receiving letters or consignments addressed in its name. Under the said circumstance, I find that the demand notices received by the petitioner at Kolkata through M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog. It further appears that the demand notices have been issued, because petitioner had not lifted coal from the coal mines of respondent no.2, situated in the State of Orissa. Thus, in my view, cause of action of this case arose either in Orissa or in West Bengal. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner utilised the coal at Koderma, Jharkhand, therefore, part of causes of action arose in Jharkhand, does not have any merit. The lis relates to non-lifting of coal as per Fuel Supply Agreement. It has no relation with the fact that petitioner is using coal at Koderma or any where else. Moreover, when the coal has not been lifted then the question of its utilisation does not arise. Thus, I find that no cause of action arose at Koderma, Jharkhand 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court had entertained a writ petition being W.P.C. No. 5256 of 2010 against the same respondents is of no help to the petitioner, because in the aforesaid writ application, petitioner challenged the order passed by the Central Government, whereby the Central Government suspended its decision for change of name in the coal linkage order. It is worth mentioning that the said order served upon the petitioner in the State of Jharkhand. Under the said circumstance, this Court had entertained the aforesaid writ application. 13. It is worth mentioning that the said order served upon the petitioner in the State of Jharkhand. Under the said circumstance, this Court had entertained the aforesaid writ application. 13. In view of the discussions made above, I find that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ application. Accordingly, I hold that this writ application is not maintainable in this Court due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 14. However, I give liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court for redressal of its grievances. Petition dismissed.