ORDER 1. Coal India Limited has come up with this petition seeking transfer of a writ petition filed by the first respondent herein in WP (C) No. 17336 of 2020 on the file of the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. 2. Heard Mr. Piyush Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Kishore Kunal, learned counsel accepts notice for the first respondent who is the writ petitioner. 3. The main ground on which the petitioner seeks transfer of the writ petition before the High Court of Orissa to the High Court of Delhi is that challenging the very same policy decision of the petitioner, at least four writ petitions are pending on the file of the High Court of Delhi and that, therefore, with a view to avoid conflicting judgments, it would be better in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the Delhi High Court. 4. But unfortunately, the petitioner does not appear to have a locus to seek transfer. This is for the reason that what is challenged by the first respondent in the writ petition filed before the High Court of Orissa is a letter dated 07.07.2020 issued by the Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd., rejecting the request for extension of the contract. In addition, the first respondent has sought a prayer for extension of the agreement dated 4.12.2015 executed by the first respondent with Mahanadi Coad Fields Ltd. For easy appreciation, the prayers in the writ petition before the High Court of Orissa are extracted as follows :- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Rule Nisi, in the nature of any appropriate writ/writs and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why : i) The letter dt. 07.07.2020 issued by O.P. No.1 under ANNEXURE-1 shall not be quashed; and ii) The O.P. No.1 shall not be directed to extend the tenure of the agreement dt. 04.12.2015 executed between Petitioner and O.P. No.1 for the final term of four years in accordance with the DGR Guidelines and MOU dt. 12.12.2013; And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule Absolute; And issue such other writ(s), order(s) and direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. 04.12.2015 executed between Petitioner and O.P. No.1 for the final term of four years in accordance with the DGR Guidelines and MOU dt. 12.12.2013; And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule Absolute; And issue such other writ(s), order(s) and direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray." 5. The letter dated 07.07.2020 challenged by the first respondent before the High Court was issued by Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited. The agreement dated 4.12.2015, whose extension is sought by way of second prayer in the writ petition, was also entered into between the first respondent and the Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. 6. It is no doubt true that Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. is a subsidiary of the petitioner, namely, Coal India Ltd. But both are different and distinct legal entities. When no relief is sought against the petitioner herein in the writ petition and the company against whom relief is sought in the writ petition is not seeking a transfer, I do not know how the petitioner is entitled to seek transfer.