Purna Chandra Borooah, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Kumar Prosad Mukherjee was at the relevant time, the Director (Commercial) of the Respondent No. 3, Coal India Limited, a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at No. 10, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. The petitioner has, in the writ petition, challenged a communication dated 19.5.1981, issued in the name of the President of India, terminating his services as the Director (Commercial) with immediate effect. Also under challenge a Circular dated 22.5.1981 issued by the Chief Executive (Establishment and Administration) of Coal India Limited, Calcutta to its subsidiary companies informing them about the essation of the employment in Coal India Limited of the petitioner with effect from 21.5.1981.
(2.) I am at the moment concerned with an application filed on behalf of the Union of India and the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, New Delhi (Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) and affirmed by an affidavit by one Sri Tirumalai Cunnawakkam Anandan Pillai Srinivasan on 4.12.1981 praying that the writ petition of Kunaar Prosad Mukherjee in Civil Rule No. 5885(W) of 1981 be dismissed on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same and that all the interim orders passed therein be vacated.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Subrata Roy Chowdhury in support of the application, Mr. Roy Chowdhury submitted that the petitioner in paragraphs 2 and 47 of the writ petition has pleaded how he was invoking this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Roy Chowdhury's contention is that as no part of the cause of actions arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition should be dismissed. In elaborating his argument Mr. Roy Chowdhury has brought to my notice the following facts:-;