Smt. Uzma Khanam vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1116 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. This petition has been adjourned at the request of counsel for the petitioner since October, 2001. On 9.10.2001, it was adjourned to 28.1.2002 and thereafter to 10.4.2002. Again adjournment was sought on account of non availability of Mr. K.S. Bindra, counsel for the petitioner. In the interest of justice, matter was again adjourned for today. Today none appeared for the petitioner initially. However, subsequently Mr. Manjit Singh Ahluwalia appeared after lunch. At his request, he was heard.

2. Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a writ directing the respondent to quash the allotment made to respondent No. 5 and allot the LPG distributorship to the petitioner. The LPG distributorship is for the territory of Bugrasi, District Bulandsharr (U.P.).

3. Respondent Indian Oil Corporation has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court would have jurisdiction since the guidelines for distribution and allotment were issued from its corporate office at New Delhi. Secondly, he submitted that the advertisement had appeared in a newspaper that was circulated in Delhi. Lastly, he submitted that the requirement under Article 226 for entertaining the petition was only that a part of cause of action should arise within the jurisdiction of the Court. He has placed reliance on Navin Chandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., . As per the said authority the High Court would have jurisdiction if any part of cause of action arises within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction, even though the seat of Government or the Authority against whom the direction is sought is not within the said territory. In the cited case, quashing of a criminal complaint was sought. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had discussed the meaning of cause of action and held that whether a Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition or not, must be answered on the basis of averments made in the petition. In reference to criminal offence, the main factor to the considered was where the alleged offence was committed. The said case would be distinguishable and cannot advance the petitioner's case in the present facts.

4. In my view, while determining the question of territorial jurisdiction, what is to be considered is whether any part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court or not, based on the averments made in the petition. In the instant case, material part of cause of action has arisen only in the State of U.P. The distributorship is to be allotted in respect of the agency at Bulandshahr. The Dealers Selection Board is located at Agra, U.P., the administrative office controlling the distributorship is again based at Agra. Merely because the corporate guidelines were issued from Corporate Office in New Delhi or that the office of the Chairman of Indian Oil Corporation happens to be in New Delhi, will not confer any territorial jurisdiction, especially when there is no challenge to the guidelines in question.

In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that no material part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The parties against whom relief is sought are not located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition, is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent court as admissible.