of the order to the person concerned is complete. Without such communication of an order to the concerned person, the cause of action is not complete for filing of a case in a court of law. In fact in the last line of para 15 of the judgment in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station and Another (supra) it is clearly observed by the Supreme Court that the decision in a file is only an „opinion‟ and which becomes a „decision‟ only when a communication is made. To clarify further, f or example, can the Government contend that an order exists in its file which was not communicated to the concerned person and yet that person‟s services are terminated merely because such order of termination of services exists in the file? The answer is obviously in negative because unless a person knows about an order of termination of services being passed, and an employee will only know about an order of termination of services only when it is communicated to him, and therefore, since communication is a compulsory link and a sine qua non for arising of the cause of action, therefore it is when the order in the Government file is communicated to the aggrieved person at a particular place, then, at that place where the communication is done, a cause of action can be said to have arisen and not at the place where the order is passed on the file because a non-communicated order passed at
