Aar Kay Enterprises vs Uoi And Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 3808 Del

$~67.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 5623/2011 & CM No.11483/2011 (for stay).
       AAR KAY ENTERPRISES                              ..... Petitioner
                    Through:          Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, Adv.
                                    versus
       UOI AND ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                         Through:     Ms. Barkha Babbar, Adv. for UOI.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                                  ORDER

% 08.08.2011

1. The petitioner had earlier preferred W.P.(C)3748/2010 in this Court

impugning the order dated 13th May, 2010 of the respondents de-registering

the petitioner from the list of vendors of the respondents. This Court held that

since the order dated 13th May, 2010 had been passed in Chandigarh and the

petitioner is also located in Chandigarh, the Chandigarh Court was the more

appropriate Court to entertain the challenge. The writ petition was accordingly

dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in

accordance with law.

2. The petitioner thereafter moved the Punjab & Haryana High Court at

Chandigarh by way of CWP No. 7637/2011. However the petitioner before

that High Court represented that it had made a representation to the

respondents. That writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 2nd May, 2011

with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation made by the

petitioner and with a liberty to move "that Court" if the petitioner remains

aggrieved.

3. The representation of the petitioner was directed to the Headquarters at

New Delhi and was rejected vide order dated 3rd May, 2011; contending that

since the rejection is by the Headquarters at New Delhi and thus this Court will

have territorial jurisdiction, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. A perusal of the rejection letter dated 3rd May, 2011 shows that the

Headquarters at New Delhi have on examination of the representation of the

petitioner merely held that no error was found in the decision taken by the Air

Force Station at Chandigarh.

5. I am of the view that in the aforesaid circumstances when this Court has

once already taken a view that the more appropriate Court to go into the

grievance of the petitioner is the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

and further when the Punjab & Haryana High Court moved by the petitioner

gave opportunity to the petitioner to move that Court only, it is not deemed

appropriate to now entertain this writ petition. I may also mention that Full

Bench of Five Judges of this Court has vide judgment dated 1 st August, 2011

in WP(C) No. 6570/2010 titled M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd v. UOI

overruled the earlier Full Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. UOI AIR

2010 Delhi 43 and held that this Court is not bound to entertain a petition

merely because the order impugned therein has been passed at Delhi, when

another Court would be more appropriate Court to entertain the controversy.

6. The petition is therefore dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take

appropriate remedies. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J

AUGUST 08, 2011 pp.