M. L. CHATURVEDI, J.:- These four writ petitions do not indicate the provision of law under which they have been made, but the cases have been argued on the assumption that these petitions have been made under Art.226 of the Constitution and they will be dealt with as such.

2. The different petitioners in all these petitions were on the roll of Civilian Staff of the Defence Ministry, Government of India, and were serving under the Central Ordnance Depot., Agra. They were previously discharged from service, but were afterwards either reinstated or re-employed, and in June 1953 they were working under the Ordnance Depot. There appears to have been a difference of opinion as regards the status and emoluments of the petitioners between the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, and the Audit Department. Ultimately the Union of India, by their letter dated 26-6-1953, communicated their decision to the effect that some of the personnel would be regarded as "reinstated", some as "re-employed" and certain others were kept under consideration.

The petitioners had been treated as having been re-employed. The petitioners sent representations objecting to their being treated as re-employed personnel, but the representations proved to be of no avail. The present petitions were filed on 2-12-1953 and the main prayers contained in them are that this Court may issue writs or orders quashing the order of the Union of India dated 26-6-1953 in so far as it relates to the petitioners, and for the issue of other writs or directions commanding the Union of India to recall its decision treating the petitioners as re-employed persons and to treat them henceforth as reinstated persons. Respondent 1 to the petitions is the Union of India through the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi, and respondent 2 is the Commandant, C.O.D., Agra.

3. It is not necessary to mention the facts of the cases in any detail, because the learned Standing Counsel took a preliminary objection to the hearing of these petitions, and, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length, we have come to the conclusion that the preliminary objection has to be given effect to. The preliminary objection is to the effect that the Government of the Union of India is located at Delhi, outside the jurisdiction of this Court, and this Court cannot issue any writ or direction to the Government or to the Union of India, as prayed for in these petitions. The order, that is sought to be quashed, purports to have been issued from the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, and is signed by an Assistant Secretary to the Government of India, and the directions prayed for are commands to be issued to the Union of India, besides the prayer to quash the order. It is not the case that the order is void.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to meet this objection by saying that the Union of India is different from the Government of the Union, and it is located throughout the territory comprised within the Union, that is, the territory composed of the different States that form part of the Union. It is argued that, because of the provisions of Art.300 of the Constitution, the Government of the Union is to be sued in the name of the Union and a writ also, therefore, has to be issued to the Union and not to any member of the Government of the Union. It is said that there are only two criteria for determining the location of an entity like this and they are the extent of its territory and the area over which it functions. In the alternative it is urged that even the Government of the Union is located everywhere in India, and the position here is different from that in America or Australia because, under the Constitutions of those countries, the seat of the Government of the United States of America is in Columbia and that of the Commonwealth of Australia in New Southwales.

The Indian Constitution has not located the seat of the Government at any