The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the territorial jurisdiction defined by the presidential order and the order dated 212.1976, which determined the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Bench of the High Court over certain districts.

Govind Mathur, J.- These three petitions are based on common facts and the question required to be decided is also similar, therefore, the same are heard and decided by a common order. For convenience the facts of

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3050/2005 are taken into consideration.

2. By this petition an appropriate writ, order or direction is sought by the petitioner to quash the order dated 28.03.2005 passed by the Executive Director, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"); the notice dated 25.04.2005 issued by the Manager (Branch), Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Kota and the order dated 06.05.2005 passed by the Manager, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Kota.

.3. By order dated 28.03.2005 the respondent Corporation withdrew the directions issued by a letter dated 25.02.2005 pertaining to allotment of land acquired from RIICO by the Corporation. By notice dated 25.04.20

.the Manager of Kota Branch of the Corporation sought explanation from the petitioner as to why the allotment of land made in his favour by letter dated 11.03.2005 be not withdrawn/cancelled being not legal. By order dated 06.05.2005 the Manger of the Corporation cancelled the allotment of land made in favour of petitioner, situated at Indira Vihar, Kota.

4. While giving challenge to the orders mentioned above the petitioner has also given challenge to the order dated 08.04.2005 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation placing the petitioner under suspension by exercising powers conferred by Regulation No. 37(A)of the RFC (Staff) Regulations, 1948. By the same order during the period of suspension headquarter of the petitioner was fixed at Regional Office, Jodhpur, The petitioner has also given challenge to the memorandum dated 12.04.2005 issued by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as per the provisions of RFC (Staff) Regulations Act, 1958.

5. This Court by a order dated 23.05.2005 pleased to issue notice to show cause to the respondents as to why the writ petition by not admitted, in pursuant thereof a reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents and a rejoinder is submitted by the petitioner. A saur-rejoinder is also filed on behalf of the respondents.

6. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition at Jodhpur on the count that whatever cause of action said to be arisen for filling the present writ petition arose either at Kota or at Jaipur, therefore, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertaining to cause in question can be entertained by this Court before its Bench at Jaipur.

.7. Learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation to substantiate the preliminary objection asserted that the President of India in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section(2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and after consultation with Governor of Rajasthan and Chief Justice of High Court of Rajasthan issued a presidential order establishing a permanent Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur w.e.f. 31.01.1977. It is further emphasised that under an order dated 212.1976 Honble Chief Justice of this Court while exercising powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 read with Sections 54 and 57 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 ordered that w.e.f. 31st day of January, 1977 all the cases arising in revenue Districts of Ajmer, Alwar, Bundi, Bharatpur, Jaipur, Jhalawar, Jhunjhunu, Kota, Sawaimadhopur, Sikar and Tonk shall be disposed of by the Bench of this Court at Jaipur. According to Counsel for the respondents in light of presidential order and the order dated 212.1976 the jurisdiction to adjudicate present writ petition vests with Jaipur Bench of this Court. Counsel for the respondents also substantiated the contention by placing reliance up