(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1840 OF 2010 Sanjiv s/o. Sitaram Patil. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, & 3 Others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. B.B. Yenge, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. From the cause title, it can be seen that the petitioner is seeking a relief against the respondents, who are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of principal seat at Mumbai. It (2) is contended on behalf of the petitioner, that since the petitioner resides at Jalgaon, this Bench will have territorial jurisdiction. 2. The law is no more res integra, right from the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. M/s. Swaika Properties and another (AIR 1985 SC 1289), till the case of Alchemist Limited and another Vs. State Bank of Sikkim & others (2007 AIR (SCW) 3023). The legal position is clear. 3. Mere residence of the petitioner does not give a cause of action for him to file a petition before the court which has a territorial jurisdiction regarding his place of his residence. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the present petition will have to be placed before the principal seat at Mumbai. 4. Hence, the Registry to transmit the papers to the principal seat at Mumbai. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1840