The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition challenging orders passed by a Tribunal within the jurisdiction of another High Court is determined by the territorial limits of the cause of action.

( 1 ) THE writ petitioner is a Co-operative society registered under the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and is running a Sugar Factory at gouribidanur in Kolar Dist. Gouribidanur is approximately at a distance of 15 kilo metres away from the karnataka and Andhra Pradesh border in Karnataka. The Sugarcane growers of Andhra Pradesh approached the petitioner Society, according to the writ petitioner, with a request to purchase the sugarcane grown by them with a view to alleviate the suffering of the sugarcane growers from andhra Pradesh and the Board of management of the petitioner Society resolved to purchase the sugarcane grown by them. Pursuant to the said resolution of the Board, the Society purchased the sugarcane during the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. The petitioner has further submitted that at the time when the Board resolved to purchase the sugarcane from the growers in Andhra Pradesh, the purchase of sugarcane was exempted from tax under the General Sale tax Laws. The third respondent - the Asst. Director of Agriculture in the writ petition, however, issued a show cause notice demanding the tax at the rate of Ra. 10 per metric ton of sugarcane purchased by the petitioner society from the growers in Andhra pradesh during the year 1973 seapon under the Andhra Pradesh Regulation of supply and purchase Act, 1961. After failing in its attempt to persuade the authorities to desist from making this demand, the present writ petitioner society filed WP No. 516 of 1976 before, the; High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, questioning amongst other things the legality of the demand made by the third respondent. The Andhra Pradesh high Court by its order dated 26-9-77 allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein and set aside the demand notice and further directed the third respondent herein to determine the liability, if any, after giving due notice to the petitioner Society to place before him all the materials and evidence if any, as to the place of purchase. A copy of the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is produced along with the writ Petition and is marked at Annexure-A. Pursuant to the said direction issued by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the third (respondent herein called upon the petitioner - Society to furnish all the particulars with regard to the cane purchased from the sugar cane growers of Andhra Pradesh and to appear before him and to submit what the petitioner has to submit in the matter. In response to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the third respondent and filed a detailed statement, regarding purchase of the cane as per Annexure-B in the writ petition. The petitioner also produced the relevant documents like agreements, permits etc. , before the third respondent. After examining the documents and agreement and on hearing the petitioner, the third respondent herein held that purchase of sugarcane was completed within the State of Andhra pradesh and as such the petitioner Society was liable to pay the tax under the Act. A copy of the order is produced along with the writ petition and is marked as annexure-C. Against that order, the present writ petitioner preferred an append before the second respondent namely, the Cane Commissioner and the Director of Andhra Pradesh Government, hyderabad under S. 21 (a) read with Rule 43 (c) (1) of the Rules. The second respondent without hearing the petitioner, according to the present petitioner, dismissed the appeal by an order dated 29-4-1978. A copy of the said order is herewith, produce and marked as Annexure-D along with the writ petition. A revision petition was preferred against that order as provided under S. 21 (a) (3) before the first respondent-Government of Andhra pradesh and the first respondent- government dismissed the revision petition without affording an, opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further contended that the orders at Annexures D and E are not speaking orders at