Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Utkarsh India Limited & Anr vs Central Coalfield Limited & Anr on 28 May, 2021
01
SL
28.05.2021.
d.p.
W.P.A. 10528 of 2021
(Via Video Conference)
Utkarsh India Limited & Anr.
-versus-
Central Coalfield Limited & Anr.
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury,
Mr. Chayan Gupta,
Mr. S. Banerjee,
Mr. Dwip Raj Basu.
...For the Petitioner.
The petitioner No.1 is a Private Limited Company
and the petitioner No. 2 is its Director.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the letter dated
21st May, 2021 issued by the Chief Manager, Material
Management-Purchase of the Central Coalfields
Limited.
By the said communication the petitioners have
been intimated that the documents uploaded by the
Company in two chances given for uploading
shortfall/confirmatory documents was techno
commercially evaluated and found to be technically
unacceptable for item serial no. 7 of the NIT. The
communicating letter was issued from the office of the
respondents at Jharkhand. The respondents
impleaded in the instant writ petition have their offices
in Ranchi, Jharkhand.
At the very outset, the petitioners were requested
to satisfy the Court as to how jurisdiction can be
exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in the instant matter.
The learned advocate representing the petitioners
submitted that the communicating letter was served in
the office of the petitioners within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. It was further submitted that
as per the impugned order the petitioners were found to
be defaulters and penalty was imposed upon the
Company without giving an opportunity of hearing. It
was further submitted that the petitioners have been
disqualified from participating in any tender for a
period of one year and the said disqualification affected
the right of business of the petitioners and the said
affectation of right arose within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court.
A judgment delivered by this Court in the matter
of Sri Pankaj Panwar vs. Lalit Kala Akademi & Ors.,
reported in AIR 2015 Cal 67 was relied upon.
In the said decision, the Court took into
consideration a judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Everest
Coal Company -vs- Coal Controller, reported in 90 CWN
438 wherein the Court ruled as follows:-
"In order to maintain a writ application the
petitioner has to establish that within the territorial
limits of the court's jurisdiction, prima facie, a legal
right claimed by him has been either infringed or is
threatened to be infringed by the respondents. When
the impugned act of the respondents takes effect within
the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court, it
may entertain the writ petition of the person aggrieved
notwithstanding that the respondents have the offices
or residences outside its territorial jurisdiction." The
court further held that in the event the order is given
effect to against the petitioner within the jurisdiction of
the said High Court then at least a part of the cause of
action arose where the impugned order is implemented.
The petitioners also placed reliance upon
paragraph 48 of the judgment in the case of Lalit Kala
Akademi (supra) wherein the Court held that to hold
that service of an order or a notice on the addressee
would never give rise to a cause of action to move the
court within whose territorial limits the order /notice is
received, may not be reasonably sound. The plea of
affectation of right or interest by reason of such order
being served, if based on a substantial fact forming a
part of the bundle of facts constituting the cause of
action, would be relevant for determination of the
question as to whether the writ petition ought to be
entertained or not.
In the instant case, it appears that, the notice of
tender was floated by the respondents from Ranchi,
Jharkhand. The tender was an e-Tender and an
intending participant could participate in the said
tender from any part of the country.
The general condition of contract as mentioned in
the Notice Inviting Tender specifically clarified that any
notice given by one party to the other shall be at the
address of the purchasers mentioned therein. The
address of the purchaser was Ranchi, Jharkhand. The
settlement of disputes was to be made by the Courts in
whose territorial jurisdiction the place from where the
contract was issued is located i.e., Ranchi, Jharkhand.
According to the petitioners, as the contract was
yet to be entered by and between the parties,
accordingly, the aforesaid instruction as mentioned in
the Notice Inviting Tender shall not be applicable.
The impugned communication specifically
mentions that the petitioners have been found
defaulters and disqualified for the specific item of the
NIT for which the default has been committed. The
aforesaid disqualification does not stand in the way of
the petitioners in participating in any other tender
items either of the respondent Company or any other
Company.
Since the tender was floated in the electronic
mode there may have been participants from all over
the country. A communication which may appear to be
disadvantageous to any of the participants ought not to
be allowed to be challenged at a place where the alleged
communication is made. In that case, the respondent
Company would be compelled to defend cases
throughout the country.
The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions
specifically laid down that the Courts within whose
jurisdiction the integral part of the cause of action
arises can exercise jurisdiction to decide the issue.
Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India
empowers the High Courts to exercise jurisdiction
within which the cause of action, wholly or in part,
arises for the exercise of such power.
In the case at hand, it appears that the integral
part of the cause of action i.e., the floating of tender,
the scrutinization of the documents and the decision to
disqualify the petitioners and impose penalty was taken
at Ranchi, Jharkhand. The communication of the
impugned order was, however, sent to the petitioners at
the address which, incidentally, falls within the
jurisdiction of this Court.
As regards the submission of the petitioners with
regard to their affectation of the right to business being
infringed by the respondents lies within the jurisdiction
of this Court, does not appeal to the Court. The
communication specifically mentions that the
disqualification was in respect of the specific item only,
which implies that the petitioners could carry on
business in respect of the other items and in respect of
the other Companies.
Whether the impugned order is valid in the eye of
law or not is a different matter altogether.
The Court is not satisfied that the Calcutta High
Court can exercise jurisdiction to decide the issue,
accordingly, the instant writ petition stand dismissed
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of this Court to
adjudicate the matter on merits.
The dismissal of the writ petition shall, however,
not stand in the way of the petitioners from
approaching the proper forum to decide the issue on
merits.
WPA 10528 of 2021 stands dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for be given to the parties after completion of all
legal formalities.
( Amrita Sinha, J.)
