IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4676 of 2004 Bansi Prasad son of Late Ambika Prasad Ex. Dy. General Manager (Finance) village Shahpur Pagra, P.S. Dalsingh Sarai, Samastipur …Petitioner Versus 1. The Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. registered office Madhuban, 55, Nehru Place New Delhi through the Chairman and Managing Director 2. Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. registered office Madhuban, 55, Nehru Place New Delhi 3. Board of Directors, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. registered office Madhuban, 55, Nehru Place New Delhi 4. Board of Trustees Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. Employees Provident Fund Trust, Namrup Unit, Madhuban, 55, Nehru Place New Delhi through its Chairman 5. Chairman Board of Trustees Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. Employees Provident Fund Trust Namrup Unit Madhuban, 55, Nehru Place New Delhi …Respondents ----------- 10. 17.10.2011 Heard Mr. G. C. Verma for the petitioner and Mr. Gupta for the respondents. It is admitted position that the proceeding was initiated and concluded outside the State of Bihar. When the impugned order was passed (Annexure-2), the petitioner had already superannuated and the said order was thus served on him at his permanent address in the State of Bihar. Counsel for the respondents raises preliminary objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the case of M/s Swaika Properties (AIR 1985 SC 1289) a well as on the case of S.S. Rathore vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1990 SC 10). It is submitted that the full bench of the Kerala High Court considered the 2 issue in great detail in Naik Naku Deb Singh vs. Deputy Commandant (CISF) since reported in 2000 LAB I.C. 464. It has been argued that receipt of communication of the order by itself does not constitute a fact in the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action. At best receipt of the order or communication only gives the party a right of action based on the cause of action arising out of the action complained of. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, seeks permission of the court to withdraw this application in order to ventilate his grievance(s) before the court having the jurisdiction over the matter. The application is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )