The court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition is not solely determined by the location of the office of the respondent whose action is under challenge, but also by whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

( 1 ) IT appears from the records that this writ petition was entertained by this Court on 23rd September. 2005 when direction was given for filing affidavits in connection with this writ petition in the presence of the respondents. It appears from the said order that an interim order was also passed in this writ petition.

( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY an application for amendment of the writ petition was filed by the petitioners for incorporating certain subsequent events therein. In the proposed amendment additional reliefs have also been sought in the changed scenario.

( 3 ) WHEN the said application for amendment was taken into consideration, a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this writ petition was taken by Mr. Das Adhikary, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 for the first time. Mr. Das Adhikary submitted that since the petitioners have challenged the legality of the show-cause notice issued by the Regional Provident Fund Authority at jharkhand. this Court cannot entertain this writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. It was further contended that writ of certiorari which has been prayed for in this writ petition cannot issued, as the custodian of the records relating to the dispute lies within the jurisdiction of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi.

( 4 ) MR. Das Adhikaty further submitted that the entire cause of action for this writ petition arose within the jurisdiction of the High Court at ranchi. As such, this Court cannot entertain this writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction.

( 5 ) MR. Das Adhikary pointed out that the impugned show-cause notice was issued by the Regional Provident Fund authority, Jharkhand within whose jurisdiction the petitioners admittedly maintain their establishment relating to their Biri Manufacturing process. Mr. Das adhikary further pointed out from annexure 'p-6' to this writ petition that the petitioners' establishment in Bihar now in Jharkhand was assessed under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous provision Act, 1952 with effect from 15th September, 1978 and a separate code number had also been allotted in favour of the petitioners' establishment in Bihar now in Jharkhand by the concerned authority in Bihar now in Jharkhand.

( 6 ) MR. Das Adhikary thus contended that when admittedly the petitioners maintain their establishment in Jharkhand and a separate code number has also been allotted in respect of the said establishment by the Jharkhand authority notwithstanding allotment of a separate code number earlier by the Regional Provident Fund authority in West bengal in respect of their establishment within West Bengal, the jharkhand authority has certainly jurisdiction to determine the petitioners' dues towards the provident fund of their employees engaged in their establishment at Jharkhand.

( 7 ) MR. Das Adhikary further submitted that section 2a of the said act was incorporated in the statute only for the purpose of ascertaining the applicability of the said Act to an establishment which employs more than 20 employees altogether in the principal establishment as well as in its other branches and/or departments. Mr. Das Adhikary further submitted that once it is ascertained that an establishment is covered under the said Act by applying the principles as laid down under section 2a of the said Act, the competent authority may determine the liability of the establishment regarding the payment of provident funds dues of its employees in respect of each of the branches and/or departments independently.

( 8 ) IN support of such submission, Mr. Das Adhikary relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : (i) U. P. State Electricity Board v. Shri Shiv Mohan Singh and Ann, JT 2004 (8) SC 272 (ii) Jagdish and Ors. v. Harendrajit Singh. (1985)4 SCC 508

( 9 ) RELYING upon the said decisions. Mr. Das Adhikary submitted that the Jharkhand authority, viz. . the respondent No. 2 did not exceed i