A.M. Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) When the petition was moved on 11/5/90 with notice to the respondents, the latter raised a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the Petition as according to them neither the respondents are within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court nor the alleged cause of action can be said to have arisen, wholly or in part, within such jurisdiction. With the consent of the parties, the matter was directed to be placed for hearing on the question of jurisdiction on 16/5/90 and an interim order was passed to operate till that date. But on 16/5/90, the hearing could not be concluded and as the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners prayed for adjournment for a day on the ground of physical indisposition, the matter has come up to -day for hearing and order. The interim order was also continued till to -day. It is not, as it cannot be, disputed that even after the insertion of clause (1A) by the Constitution Amendment Act of 1963, now re -numbered as clause (2), a Writ Petition can not lie in any High Court unless (a) the authority against thorn the Writ is sought is within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court or (b) at least a part of the cause of action has arisen within that jurisdiction.
(2.) It is obvious from the Petition that all Respondents, who really count, are out -side the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and only the Respondent no. 6, a Private Limited Company, who, according to the averments in the Petition in paragraph 49, has been appointed as an agent of the Respondent no. 5, is within such jurisdiction. There is no averment in the Petition as to the nature or constitution of this Respondent no. 6 to show that this private Limited Company can be regarded to be an instrumentality of State or is otherwise such an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 against whom a Writ can issue independently. It is also not disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that if the Writ Petition fails against the other Respondents, a Writ against the Respondent no. 6 alone, even if available, would be futile.
(3.) The question of jurisdiction, at this stage, is obviously to be determined on the basis of the allegations made in the Writ Petition. It is true that in paragraph 54 of the Petition, an allegation has been made that "the record of this case are lying partly in New Delhi and partly within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court". The averment is extremely vague as it has not been spelt out as to with whom or which authority the part of the records are lying and at which place within the State of West Bengal and whether any such records relate to the accrual of cause of action in this case or have any bearing thereon.;