M/S Shri Tiwari Transport vs The Madhya Pradesh State ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6887 MP

                                1
                                                  W.P. No.15503/2021


         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                Writ Petition No.15503/2021

                 M/s. Shri Tiwari Transport
                            Versus
     The Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Marketing
                Federation Limited and others
Date of Order              27.10.2021
Bench Constituted         Single Bench
Order delivered by        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi
Whether approved for      No
reporting
Name of counsels for      For Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Pancholi,
                          Advocate.
parties
                          For Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Mr.

V.S. Choudhary, Advocate.

Law laid down             ---
Significant Para Nos.     ---
Reserved on: 27.09.2021
Delivered on:27.10.2021
                         (O R D E R)
                         (27.10.2021)

Since, this matter is listed for hearing on the question of territorial jurisdiction, therefore, the arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the said point.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the validity of order dated 05.08.2021 (Annexure-P/14) in terms of which his firm has been blacklisted for a period of ten years and he has also been restricted to participate in any of the tenders of the respondents/Federation.

W.P. No.15503/2021

3. To resolve the controversy involved in this case certain important facts are taken into consideration which in nutshell are that the petitioner's firm was given a contract for transporting the fertilizers, but the said contract was not performed by the petitioner's firm and despite collecting the fertilizers from the railway rack-point, the same were not delivered by the petitioner's firm at the destination in Mandsour and Neemuch districts.

(3.1) The respondents/Federation is known as M.P.

Markfed which is a registered body under the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The said Federation is involved in the business of promoting the cooperative marketing and agriculture produce to benefit the farmers and, therefore, under the said exercise, it produces, sales and distributes the agriculture produce; related commodities like fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, agriculture machineries and procurement of food-grains under minimum price support schemes from primary agriculture credit cooperative societies, marketing cooperative societies and farmers in the remote areas. The said Federation has a vast marketing network compromising of seven 7 zonal offices, 41 district offices and 426 distribution centers at 244 different locations.

(3.2) The petitioner's firm as per the contract executed, has been transporting the food-grains for the last 15 years to the destinations and payment in lieu thereof has been made to the petitioner as per the contractual rate. As per the petitioner, a contract was also given to his firm for the years 2019-20

W.P. No.15503/2021

and 2020-21 in respect of distribution of food- grains in the districts of Mandsour and Neemuch. Not only this, but earlier also the petitioner's firm was involved in transporting the fertilizers by bringing the same from M.P. Warehousing Logistic Corporation, Pipliamandi to the different societies and in the said work, the petitioner had taken the help of his father namely Thakur Prasad Tiwari and misappropriated the fertilizers and this fact was admitted by him in an affidavit submitted on 07.12.2020 and as such, an FIR got registered against him in Police Station Pipaliamandi.

(3.3) The office of the petitioner's firm situates at Mandsour and all the works relate to the of the petitioner for transporting the food-grains are out of the territorial jurisdiction of Jabalpur whereas it admittedly falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Indore Bench. The dispute arose when a letter dated 23.01.2021 (Annexure-P/9) was forwarded by the District Marketing Officer, Mandsour to the Managing Director, M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation, Bhopal saying that an amount of Rs.3,32,52,285.17 has already been adjusted from the account of the petitioner and still an amount of Rs.1,31,27,157.88 has to be recovered from the petitioner's firm. It has also been informed that the petitioner's firm has performed the contract of transporting the food- grains in the areas of Agar Malva and Ujjain and the amount to be paid to the petitioner's firm is yet to be determined. Thereafter, an order of blacklisting dated 05.08.2021 (Annexure-P/14) has

W.P. No.15503/2021

been issued from the office of the Managing Director of the respondents/Federation situates at Bhopal. Hence, this petition has been filed saying that the order was issued from the Bhopal office and since the said office situates within the territorial jurisdiction of Jabalpur, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable at Jabalpur because as per the petitioner, part cause of action has arisen from Bhopal only.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the part cause of action has arisen in an area which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Jabalpur, therefore, this petition is maintainable in Jabalupr itself. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon various orders viz. (2006) 3 SCC 100 [Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and others Vs. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and others]; (2021) 1 SCC 804 [Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another]; (2010) 4 SCC 785 [Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers]; (2021) 2 SCC 551 [UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and another]; (2010) 8 SCC 49[Sindhi Education Society and another Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and others]; (1995) 2 SCC 25[Mahabir Biswas and another Vs. State of W.B.]; AIR 1975 SC 258 [State of Punjab Vs. Bhajan Singh and others]; AIR 1960 SC 409 [Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P.];1997 (1) JLJ 221 [Pratiksha (Ku.) Vs. Devi Ahilyabai Vishwavidayal].

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner saying that merely because small part

W.P. No.15503/2021

of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Jabalpur, the same cannot be considered to be a determinative factor for the High Court to entertain the petition whereas most part of cause of action relates to some other Bench. He has also filed a brief submission regarding territorial jurisdiction mentioning therein that the petitioner has been awarded the contract of transporting the food-grains for Mandsour and Neemuch districts. It is mentioned in the brief submission that earlier the petitioner was involved in transporting the fertilizers with the help of his father that too in the area falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Indore Bench. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has denied the fact that he has never been awarded any contract for distribution of fertilizers, but the sole allegation against the petitioner is that he was involved in the said business with the help of his father and both have committed fraud, misappropriated the fertilizers and despite lifting the same from the railway rack-point, not delivered the same to the destinations and as such, after adjusting the amount from the contract awarded to the petitioner for supplying the food- grains, an order of blacklisting of the petitioner's firm has also been passed. He further submits that however from impugned order, it can be easily seen that the office of the petitioner's firm situates at Mandsour and his firm performed the contract in the area which is under the territorial jurisdiction of Indore Bench, therefore, if the order of blacklisting issued from the office situates at Bhopal which is the Head Office of respondents/Federation, that does not mean that merely because a small part of cause of action arose at Bhopal, the writ petition can be filed in Jabalpur itself. In support of his contention, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has placed reliance upon the orders passed in Writ Petition

W.P. No.15503/2021

No.17209/2019 [Badami Lal Sahu Vs. Bhola Prasad Sahu and others]; M.P. No.4855/2019 [Anjili Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.]; Writ Appeal No.1000/2020 [Mubarik Hussain Vs. Airport Director, Airport Authority of India, Bhopal & ors.] and W.P. No.11447/2018 [Krishna Devi Jaiswal Vs. State of MP and others].

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In the case of Badami Lal Sahu (supra), the coordinate Bench relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 [Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India] has observed that merely because an order has been passed by the Board of Revenue situates at Gwalior that does not mean that the petition can be filed at Gwalior Bench and further observed that the dispute can be contested more conveniently at Principal Seat, Jabalpur and ultimately, applying the principle of forum conveniens dismissed the petition directing the petitioner to file a fresh petition before the Principal Seat, Jabalpur. In the said case, the coordinate Bench has observed the concept of forum conveniens or forum non-conveniens also assumes importance in the midst of the controversy involved and, therefore, the same is also required to be dealt with taking note of the definition of forum conveniens given in The Black's Law Dictationary which is as follows:-

"The Court in which an action is most appropriately brought, considering the best interests and convenience of the parties and witnesses."

In view of the above, it is clear that the place where the case can be conveniently contested by the parties is said to be a forum convenience. Here, in this case, it is the Indore Bench of this Court where the case can be conveniently contested by the

W.P. No.15503/2021

parties as all the documents relating to the contract which have given raise to the dispute are available at Mandsour, the office of the petitioner's firm is situated at Mandsour, the office of respondents which has alleged illegalities and irregularities upon the working of the petitioner is also of Mandsour, therefore, the Indore Bench would be the proper forum where the petitioner can raise the dispute and file a petition.

8. Likewise, in the case of Anjili Sharma (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Court has dealt with the issue of territorial jurisdiction wherein challenging the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) Gwalior in an Appeal No.59/2019, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed. The coordinate Bench considering the fact that the temporary permit was in respect of the route between Indore to Pune, has observed that merely because a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Gwalior Bench that does not mean that the petition can be filed at Gwalior Bench and ultimately, relying upon the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra), the Court was of the opinion that when major part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Indore Bench of this Court, then the petition should have been filed at Indore Bench and accordingly, dismissed the petition directing the petitioner to file a petition before the Indore Bench.

9. Furthermore, in the case of Mubarik Hussain (supra), the order dated 17.01.2019 passed in W.P. No.9558/2020 was under challenge whereby the writ petition got dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The Division Bench relying upon the law laid down in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra), has finally observed that since the small part of cause of action has arisen within the

W.P. No.15503/2021

territorial jurisdiction of the Jabalpur, therefore, the matter cannot be entertained in Jabalpur and ultimately, dismissed the writ appeal.

10. Moreover, in the case of Krishna Devi Jaiswal (supra), the main grievance raised by the petitioner was with regard to an order passed by the Authority situates at Ujjain, therefore, the coordinate Bench of this Court following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) has observed that since the main part of cause of action has arisen at Indore Bench, therefore, the petitioner, instead of filing a petition at Jabalpur should file the same at Indore Bench and finally, dismissed the petition.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner although has relied upon several judgments and on going through the same, it is gathered that most of the cases on which he has placed reliance relate to the fact as to when the order of blacklisting can be passed and what are the requirements to be followed before passing the order of blacklisting. However, only in the case of Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has dealt with the scope of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code in which the Court has found that the suit can be filed even in the place which is found to be principal place of business and at the very inception of the suit, it is very difficult for the Court to arrive at a conclusion that which is the principal place of business and, therefore, the suit cannot be rejected and dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, but the facts of the case in hand are totally different with that of Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. (supra) for the reason that in this case, the petitioner's place of business was in an area which even does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Jabalpur. However, from the cases on which learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has placed reliance and are discussed hereinabove, it is

W.P. No.15503/2021

extracted that merely because the order of blacklisting of the petitioner's firm has been passed from the Head Office of the respondents/Federation situates at Bhopal, but that does not mean that the petition is maintainable here in Jabalpur.

12. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, I am of the opinion that the maximum part of cause of action in the present case relates to the area which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Indore Bench, but only because the impugned order has been issued by the Managing Director of the respondents/Federation who sits at Bhopal, that does not give any cause of action in favour of the petitioner to file a petition at Jabalpur applying the principle of forum conveniens, on the contrary, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra), the Bench Indore of this Court would the forum conveniens for the parties and the litigation involved in the present case can be contested properly by the parties at Indore Bench.

13. Thus, this petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction directing the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by filing a fresh petition if he so requires before the Indore Bench of this Court.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE

Devashish DEVASHISH MISHRA 2021.10.28 12:20:23 +05'30'