1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTON WRIT PETITION NO.2744 OF 2002 Captain Subramanian Gopalkrishnan .. Petitioner V/s The Collector of Chennai & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.C.Naidu i/by Mr.C.R.Naidu & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.R.M.Pardiwala i/by M/s.Mulla & Mulla & CB & C for Respondent Nos.3 to 6. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 12th August, 2010. P.C. 1. Prayer (a) made in this petition, reads as under:- “In the circumstances, the petitioner prays that:- (a) For a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or Order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to recover an amount of Rs.6,56,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Only) from the Respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 as arrears of land revenue in terms of the Recovery Certificate bearing No.B-16(6)/2001-CON dated 13th September, 2002 and at Exhibit B hereto together with interest @ 18% p.a.from the date on which salary fell due or the date of the order of the CGIT i.e.13th September, 1999 till payment thereof.” 2. Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for recovery of certain amounts. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are; the Collector of Chennai and the Tahasildar, Mylapora, Triplicane Taluka, Chennai 600 001. Both the Respondents are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Petition is therefore not maintainable in this Court. 3. When we pointed out to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that 2 this petition is totally mis-conceived, he sought for leave to amend. In our opinion, the petitioner was not justified in filing this petition in this Court. He has not only filed the petition in this Court, but has also obtained interim order. In our opinion therefore such a petitioner is not entitled to any leave. Leave to amend is rejected. 4. Petition is dismissed. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)