1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3211/2003. (MOOLCHAND CHAUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.) DATE OF ORDER : 09.02.2007. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. S.P. Sharma for the petitioner/s. Mr. M.S. Godara , for the respondent/s. The disciplinary authority i.e. the Commandant, 4th Reserved Battalion, Central Security Force, Ranchi (Jharkhand) by an order dated 29.08.2002 removed the petitioner from service as a disciplinary action under Central Security Force Rules, 2001. An appeal preferred against the order referred above also came to be rejected by Dy. Inspector General, Central Security Force, Eastern Zone, Head Quarters, Patna vide an order dated 22.04.2003. Being aggrieved by the orders aforesaid, this petition for writ is preferred. By an order of this Court dated 10.11.2003 legal representatives of the petitioner were taken on record due to his death. The order dated 29.08.2002 was passed by the disciplinary authority at Ranchi and the order dated 22.04.2003 was passed by the disciplinary authority at Patna, therefore, I am of the opinion that this Court is having no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the cause involved. 2 It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the part cause of action arose in the State of Rajasthan as the order passed by the disciplinary authority was served upon the petitioner at village Saniya in district Nagaur. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that earlier a writ petition was filed by the petitioner giving challenge to order passed by the disciplinary authority and that was entertained by this Court, therefore, this petition is also required to be entertained. The contentions raised are having no merit as mere service of the order at village Saniya in district Nagaur is no part of the cause of action. The entire disciplinary action was taken at Ranchi and the appeal was considered and rejected at Patna, therefore, the cause of action arose either at Ranchi or at Patna. I have also perused the order dated 19.04.2003 whereby earlier petition for writ preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. The earlier writ petition (SBCWP No.639/2003) was dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the petitioner, who then desired to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. Mere filing and then withdrawal of the petition does not mean that it was entertained. 3 Be that as it may, even earlier entertainment of the writ petition shall not vest territorial jurisdiction with this Court to entertain the writ petition against a cause that arose beyond its territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed being lacking territorial jurisdiction. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. Anil/