Delhi High Court
United Builders (Regd.) vs Indian Oil Corporation And Ors. on 9 October, 2001
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. In view of the preliminary objection by the counsel by the counsel for respondent No.2, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to demonstrate how this Court has got territorial jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that this writ petition challenges the award of building contract for residential flats comprising of 375 dwelling units in a project to be executed in Sector 62, Noida, U.P. It is also not in dispute that tenders were opened in Noida. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to justify the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and pleaded that respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 have their offices in Delhi. The counter affidavit states that the society is also having its registered office at Noida. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has clarified that the registered office of the society is only at Noida and the society is also registered with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Lucknow. Respondent No.1 is a party against whom no claim has been made. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner has imp leaded the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as a party on the ground that it has jurisdiction in respect of the Respondent No.2 society. However, he has not produced any policy of CVC showing its jurisdiction in respect of the private societies such as Respondent No.2 society. Even assuming such jurisdiction exists it can be raised in a writ petition in the appropriate High Court. In my view since the cause of action has primarily arisen in U.P. the appropriate Court in this matter will be the Allahabad High Court.
2. A Division Bench of this Court has held in , Sector Twenty-one owners Welfare Association v. Air Force Naval Housing Board as follows:-
"The emphasis has shifted from the residence or location of the person or authority sought to be proceeded against to the situs of the accrual of cause of action wholly or in part. It is also clear that a trivial or insignificant part of the cause of action arising at in particular place would not be enough to confer writ jurisdiction; it is the cause of action mainly and substantially arising at a place which would be determinating factor of territorial jurisdiction. So also it shall have to be kept in view who are the real persons or authorities sought to be proceeded against or against whom the writ to be issued by the Court would run. Joining of proforma or ancillary parties, and certainly not the joining of unnecessary parties, would be relevant for the purpose of Article 226(1)."
3. The above judgment clearly applies to the facts of the present case as the real party against which relief is claimed is in NOIDA, U.P. and the tender was also floated and opened in NOIDA, U.P.
4. In view of the above the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction in this matter will be Allahabad High Court as held above in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court. Since I am dismissing the writ petition on the question of territorial jurisdiction I am not dealing with the plea of the Respondent No.2 that in any event a writ petition is not maintainable against Respondent No.2 as it is a private society building houses for its members from their own funds and the mere fact that they are employees of Respondent No.1 is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a Writ Court. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as the appropriate High Court would be the Allahabad High Court with no orders as to costs.
