JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. - (1.) THE petitioners in this WPCT under art.226 dated July 26, 2012 are questioning an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore dated March 14, 2012 ( WPCT p.55) allowing an OA No.149 of 2010 filed by the respondent. Mr.Mandal appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since according to the petitioners the order of the Tribunal is a nullity, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the WPCT under art.226. Ms.Nag appearing for the respondent has submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the WPCT, even if it is accepted that the order of the Tribunal is a nullity.
(2.) THE question whether the order of the Tribunal is a nullity can be considered, if necessary, only by a Court having jurisdiction to entertain the case. Hence simply because the petitioners are alleging that the order of the Tribunal is a nullity, this Court cannot assume jurisdiction unless it has jurisdiction to entertain the WPCT. Admittedly, the seat of the Tribunal is outside the territories in relation to which this Court exercises jurisdiction under art.226; and no part of the cause of action, which is in the order of the Tribunal, has either arisen within those territories. This being the position, we are unable to accept that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the WPCT. For these reasons, we dismiss the WPCT. No costs. Certified xerox. Harish Tandon, J: I agree.;