ORDER : (Common Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to condition No.3 of Office Memorandum in O.M.No.8/131/2016-PP.II, dated 27.12.2018 issued by the first respondent under the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 and quash the same as illegal.) These Writ Petitions at S.R., stage have been posted before this Court for maintainability. 2. I have heard Mr. R.D. Ganesan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both Writ Petitions, who would submit that, the petitioners, no doubt, are having office only at Chennai and the Office Memorandum, which is under challenge, has been issued by Union of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, which is having seat at New Delhi. The petitioners seek some interim relief against the second respondent, who is at Tuticorin. Therefore, according to them, part of cause of action arises at Tuticorin, which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and therefore, these Writ Petitions are maintainable before this Bench, within the meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. 3. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the Full Bench Order of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.5709 of 2011 in the matter of B. Stalin Vs. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi and others. The relevant portion, relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, reads as follows:- “27.(4) Writ Petitions can be filed before the Principal Bench at Madras or Permanent Bench at Madurai depending upon the place where the cause of action has arisen. If the cause of action has arisen wholly within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench or the Permanent Bench, obviously such writ petition can be filed only at the seat of the Principal Bench or of the Permanent Bench as the case may be. On the other hand, if the cause of action arises either wholly or in part within the areas allotted to the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai, the writ petition can be filed at any of the places.” 4. I have considered the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, if the cause of action arises either wholly or in part within the areas allotted to the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai, the writ petition can be filed at any of the places.” 4. I have considered the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 5. The petitioners namely, M/s.Mahesh Timber Trading Company, represented by its Managing Director and M/s.Sayar Timber and Ply, represented by its Proprietor are having office at Chennai. 6. The impugned clause of the Office Memorandum, which is under challenge in these Writ Petitions is Clause 3 of the O.M.No.8/131/2016-PP.II, which was issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Krichi Bhavan, New Delhi, on 27th day of December, 2018. 7. Since in these Writ Petitions, Writ of Certiorari has been sought for to call for the records of the said Office Memorandum and quash the condition No.3 imposed therein, which was issued by the first respondent under the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003, the cause of action arises for the petitioners either at New Delhi or at Chennai, where the petitioners are having their office at the aforesaid addresses. 8. Merely because the second respondent/Plant Protection Officer of Plant Quarantine Station at Tuticorin has been arrayed as party, against whom the petitioners seek some interim relief, that would not be considered as a cause of action for filing of these Writ Petitions. Insofar as the provision under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India is concerned, no doubt, the High Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue direction 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. In fact, this position has been explained and amplified in Paragraph No.27(4) of the said Full Bench Order, as has been extracted above and absolutely, there can be no quarrel on that principle and moreover, I am bound by such decision. 10. However, here the case is not that part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Bench. 10. However, here the case is not that part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Bench. But, it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners seek interim relief against the second respondent, who is having office at Tuticorin that comes within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench. 11. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, insofar as the cause of action for filing these Writ Petitions, challenging the Office Memorandum issued by the first respondent/Union of India is concerned, even it does not arise partly, within the jurisdiction of this Bench. Therefore, I am of the considered view that these Writ Petitions cannot be entertained by this Bench. 12. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea raised by the writ petitioners on maintainability and the objections made by the Registry in this regard is sustainable. 13. Resultantly, the Registry is directed to return the case papers to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, after getting acknowledgment and it is open to the petitioners to file a Writ Petition, if they are advised to do so, in the Principal Seat at Chennai. 14. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions at S.R., stage are rejected for want of jurisdiction. No costs.