The respondent No.5 in the writ petition filed this application to decide the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition as a preliminary Issue.

2. As a matter of fact, the writ petition was coming up for final hearing and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner was already heard. However, in view of the specific objection raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction, this Court after hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties in detail on the said issue, passed an order on 1.2.2008 as under:

"Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner with regard to the objection raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition, I do not find any substance in the contention of the respondents that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. Hence, while reserving .the reasons to be elaborated in the final order in the writ petition, the respondents are called upon to make their submissions on merits. As requested by the learned Counsel for the respondents, post on 8.2