ORDER : Aggrieved by the communication dated 7.10.2015, sent by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, and aggrieved by the communication dated 11.9.2015 sent by the Under Secretary, National Legal Services Authority, to the Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was aggrieved by the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.28190/2014, and in Writ Petition No.28191/2014. Therefore, the petitioner filed two separate Special Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But, in order to contest the two Special Leave Petitions, he approached the Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, respondent No.1, for providing him legal aid. However, by order dated 7.10.2015, the respondent No.1 sent a letter to the petitioner interalia on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for legal aid as the matter is devoid of any merit. 3. It seems that the petitioner had written a letter dated 17.8.2015 to the National Legal Services Authority with regard to nonfunctioning of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority units. A copy of the said letter was forwarded by the Under Secretary, by his communication dated 11.9.2015, to the Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dated 7.10.2015, and the letter dated 11.9.2015, he has approached this Court. 4. This Court has asked a pointed query to Dr. B. N. Vadiraja, the petitioner-in-person, with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court in dealing with the communication dated 7.10.2015, which has been issued in New Delhi, and has been received by the petitioner at Hyderabad. For, according to this Court, if a decision has been taken by the Screening Committee No.1 of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, the said decision was taken at Delhi. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner in Hyderabad. Therefore, the question before this Court is whether this Court has the jurisdiction to issue any writ to respondent Nos.1 and 2 or not? To this pointed query, the petitioner-in-person submits that since the Special Leave Petitions filed by him before the Hon’ble Supreme Court relates to the decisions taken by this Court, therefore, part of cause of action would arise in the State of Karnataka. Hence, according to him the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. 5. The stand being taken by the petitioner-in-person is clearly untenable. Hence, according to him the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. 5. The stand being taken by the petitioner-in-person is clearly untenable. For, although this Court may have decided the case, he had sought the benefit of legal aid from the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, which functions from New Delhi. The decision was taken by the Committee in New Delhi. The decision was communicated to the petitioner in Hyderabad. Therefore, this Court would not have the territorial jurisdiction, as no cause of action has arisen within the territory of Karnataka. 6. Even with regard to the letter dated 11.9.2015, the said letter has been written by the Under Secretary in New Delhi to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, also functioning at New Delhi. Thus, even the said letter cannot be challenged before this Court. 7. As a last measure, the petitioner-in-person has tried to persuade this Court since he happens to be a resident of Bengaluru, therefore, part of cause of action does arise in Karnataka. However, even the said contention is untenable. For, according to an application filed by the petitioner-in-person, Dr. B. N. Vadiraja, in Review Petition No. 1387/2014 in Writ Petition No. 48786/2012, he has claimed before this Court that “presently he is a resident of New Delhi. Since he is residing in New Delhi, he finds it extremely difficult to travel all the way to Bengaluru.” Therefore, the oral submission being made by the petitioner-in-person that he is the resident of Bengaluru, is bereft of any truth. Hence, the plea placed by him is unacceptable. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable before this Court. Therefore, it is, hereby, dismissed.