[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Tpf Getinsa Euroestudios S L vs National Highway Authority Of India on 16 March, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~115
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 3310/2026
Date of Decision: 16.03.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
TPF GETINSA EUROESTUDIOS S L .....petitioner
Through: Mr.K. K .Sharma Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rajiv Bakshi and Mr. Ram
Pravesh Rai Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
.....respondent
Through: Ms Neetica Sharma and Mr Naman
Saraswat Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 16000/2026 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3310/2026 and CM APPL. 16001/2026
1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
"i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, quashing Office Circular/Order No. NHAI/NH- CHH P/3801
0/2/IE-Getinsa/Pkg-11/2024/18052 dated 03.02.2026 issued by
respondent.
ii) pass any other or further order/s which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the interest of justice."
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:30:27
KUMAR KAURAV
2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner in association
with Segmental Consultancy and Infrastructure Advisory Private Limited
was awarded the work to act as Consultant/Independent Engineer to
supervise the work of Four laning of Jhansi-Khajuraho section (Package-11)
of NH-75/76 from Design Chainage Km. 76.3 (Existing Chainage 82.1 00)
near village Chhatipahari to Design Chainage Km. 161.7 (Existing Chainage
Km.57.9) near Bamitha town in the State of Uttar Pradesh & Madhya
Pradesh under NHDP (Phase-11 I) on Hybrid Annuity Mode which was to
be executed by Concessionaire under the Concession Agreement. On
12.03.2018, the petitioner mobilized and commenced consultancy services at
the project site.
3. The dispute arose over the Right of Way (ROW) fencing work in the
four-laning of the Jhansi-Khajuraho section (Package-11) of NH-75/76, that
whether the Right of Way (ROW) fencing was within the scope of work of
the petitioner, acting as Independent Engineer, or the concessionaire under
the Concession Agreement, and whether the petitioner was required to
ensure its execution.
4. There were concerns whether the petitioner failed to exercise due
diligence in reviewing the plans, profiles, and supporting documents
submitted by the concessionaire, which allegedly resulted in non-
implementation of Right of Way (ROW) fencing and the respondent
contends that this amounted to a breach of Clause 3.1.1 of the General
Conditions of Contract and Section 6 of the Terms of Reference.
5. Thereafter, respondent issued a show cause notice on 28.09.2024
alleging that the petitioner failed to exercise the due diligence in reviewing
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:30:27
KUMAR KAURAV
drawings and documents submitted by the Concessionaire for ROW fencing
along the four-laning of the Jhansi-Khajuraho section (Package-11).
6. Subsequently Vide the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 passed by
the respondent, the petitioner has been declared „non-performer‟ for a period
of six months and a penalty of Rs.9,47,975/- has been imposed on it.
7. The aforenoted factual narration reveals that the work in question,
which is the genesis of the entire dispute, has taken place outside the
jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner seems to have approached this
Court merely on the ground that the impugned order has been passed in, and
the office of the Respondent-Authority is situated at, New Delhi.
8. This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi,1
took note of the decisions in Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban
Development Corp.,2 Riddhima Singh v. Central Board of Secondary
Education,3 Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital v.
Uttarakhand University of Ayurveda and Ors.,4 Michael Builders and
Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Medical Commission and Ors.,5 which
declare that the situs of the head office/registered office of the respondent,
does not determine whether the Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction
to entertain a writ petition.
9. The Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. importantly noted, at para. 36:
"36. A petitioner who approaches this Court to assail a decision of an
authority situated in Delhi, when the underlying cause for the said decision
lies elsewhere, effectively attempts to make this High Court a mini-pan-
India Superior Court exercising jurisdiction over all events which take
2026:DHC:1605.
2014 SCC OnLine Del 2892.
2023 SCC OnLine Del 7168.
2024:DHC:6903-DB
2024:DHC:7146.
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:30:27
KUMAR KAURAV
place throughout this Country. There is no gainsaying with the proposition
that every High Court is competent to adjudicate upon a lis which arises
from events or actions taking place within its territory. Merely because the
ultimate order, which is based on events taking place outside Delhi and
takes cognizance of actions outside of Delhi, is passed within the
jurisdiction of this Court, a writ petition ought not be entertained by this
Court."
10. On the issue of a claimant approaching this Court on the sole-ground
of the respondent-authority, an arm of the union government, being situated
within the jurisdiction of this Court, it was observed at para. 37-38:
"37. Naturally, being the capital of the Country, various authorities and
bodies having pan-India jurisdiction would be located within the
jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because the decision making authority
happens to be in Delhi, ought not to be the sole reason to entertain a lis in
this Court. The decision, no doubt, may be passed in the national capital,
but it is usually against persons situated outside Delhi; and even more
importantly, for actions which took place beyond the borders of this Court.
The act of giving a hearing in Delhi, or the passing of an order in Delhi, is
merely a result of a body/authority being situated in the national capital, it
has nothing to do with the lis, the offending action, the legal injury or the
foundational facts on the basis of which action is being taken.
38. The case-law cited above, makes repeated reference to "dominant
facts", and facts which are "material, essential and integral" to the lis in
question. In most cases, the fact that the order is passed, or the head office
is located, or that opportunity of hearing was afforded, within the
jurisdiction of this Court is completely immaterial, non-essential, and non-
integral to the dispute in question. Any of the aforenoted three aspects could
very well have taken place in another part of the Country, it is for the sole
reason that Delhi is the national capital, that, in most cases these factors get
connected to the jurisdiction of this Court. From another lens, it may be
seen that regardless of what the underlying facts or legal
injury/infringement may be, the order impugned would, in an overwhelming
number of cases be passed from Delhi. If this be the case, can this constant
factum, which shall remain present in each case, be considered a "dominant
fact" or a "material, essential and integral" fact? The answer must be in
the negative."
11. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the substance of a matter must be
adjudged, and not the unchanging constant which is present in every petition
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:30:27
KUMAR KAURAV
against a state-authority, to arrive at a conclusion on whether to entertain a
petition in the context of territorial jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.
At para. 42 this Court observed:
"42. It is the substance of the matter which the Court must consider in
determining the connection with Delhi. An order being passed by an
authority in Delhi is an unchanging constant. This static/uniform facet,
which is unmoved by the nature of the lis, ought not to determine where
territorial jurisdiction would lie."
12. In the facts of the instant case, there may be a part of cause of action
which has arisen in Delhi, however, the same should not be the sole reason
to entertain the instant petition.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v.
Union of India and Anr.,6 has held that even if a small part of cause of
action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by
itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the
High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court
may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine
of forum conveniens. The material portion of the aforenoted decision reads
as under:
"Forum conveniens
30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of
cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High
Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative
factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In
appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat
Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney [AIR 1941 Cal 670 : ILR
(1941) 1 Cal 490] , Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945) 49 CWN 357 :
AIR 1949 Cal 495] , Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold
Storage (P) Ltd. [1997 CWN 122] , S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of
India [(1994) 1 CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of
(2004) 6 SCC 254.
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:30:27
KUMAR KAURAV
India [AIR 1994 Del 126] .]"
14. In view of the above, petition stands dismissed, along with the
pending application. Liberty is, however, granted in favour of the petitioner
to approach the jurisdictional High Court to agitate the instant lis, if so
advised.
15. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MARCH 16, 2026
Nc
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed
Signing Date:19.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:30:27
KUMAR KAURAV
