C. Praveen Kumar, J.

Pursuant to an office note with regard to maintainability of the writ petition before this Court, the matter is posted under the caption for orders of the Court.

2. In order to decide the issue of maintainability and the objection raised by the office, it would be useful to refer to the facts in issue.

3. The writ petitioner herein, who is a resident of Hyderabad, is said to be the Managing Director of M/s. Sasanka Infra Projects Private Limited. The 5th respondent namely Narmada Valley Development Authority, Katni, Madhya Pradesh, awarded the contract to the 4th respondent namely HES Infra Private Limited, having its registered office at Hyderabad, to execute Vijayaraghavghar Branch Canal from 0.00 to 57.170 KM and Pilongy Distributory from 0.00 KM to 7.93 KMs of Bargi Diversion Project on Turnkey basis. The said contract was sub-contracted to Sasanka Infra Projects Private Limited, of which the petitioner is a Managing Director, vide agreement dated 15.02.2013. Two years later, the 4th respondent is said to have terminated the sub-contract, through a letter dated 08.09.2015. The claim made by the petitioner with the 4th respondent came to be answered saying that the said amount would be paid after the amount is received from the 5th respondent. It is urged that to initiate action against the 4th respondent, the petitioner needs some documents from the office of respondents 2 and 3. Hence, he made an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the 2nd respondent i.e., Public Information Officer, O/o. the Executive Engineer, Katni, Madhya Pradesh State. On 25.05.2018, the 2nd respondent is said to have dismissed the application intimating the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the 3rd respondent i.e., Appellate Information Officer, O/o. Executive Engineer, Katni, Madhya Pradesh State, which was also dismissed on 30.06.2018. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed before this Court.

4. An objection came to be raised by the office, which is as under :

Please clarify, how the writ is entertain-able as the relief sought for pertains to other State i.e., (Madhya Pradesh).

5. An endorsement is made by the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad and the appeal was rejected on pending proceedings before Hon’ble High Court of Hyderabad and the said order was received in Hyderabad by petitioner.

6. Not being satisfied with the explanation given, the Registry posted the present writ petition for orders of the Court.

7. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the order was communicated to the petitioner in Hyderabad; that he is a resident of Hyderabad and since the reason for rejecting his application by the Appellate Authority was due to pendency of the writ petition in this Court, pleads that this Court would get territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

8. It is to be noted here that the grievance of the petitioner is against respondents 1 to 3, having their offices in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As observed by me earlier, the present writ petition came to be filed challenging the order passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting his request to furnish certain documents, so as to enable the writ petitioner to file cases against the 4th respondent. It appears that the entire emphasis of the petitioner is on clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India basing on the purported cause of action.

9. In order to decide as to whether this Court would get jurisdiction, it would be useful to refer to clauses 1 and 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories, directi