Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Allied Traders Through Partner Anil ... vs Union Of India on 16 April, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION NO. 30765 of 2024
M/S ALLIED TRADERS
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri Shashank Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Deputy Solicitor General for the
respondents/UOI.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"1. That, this petition may be kindly be allowed and the
impugned order dated 30.06.2022 may kindly be set aside.
2. That the respondent authority may kindly be directed
to return the FDRs for the tune of rupees 72 lakhs of the
petitioner with the immediate effect.
3. That the pending representation may kindly be directed
to be decide by the respondent authority in a fair and
justiciable manner.
4. Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court
may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be
granted in favor of the petitioner doing justice in the
matter."
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that
respondent No.2 without conducting any enquiry and affording any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, delisted the petitioner
company from the fray of participating in contractual bids. It is
further submitted that the penalty which was imposed by the
respondents department has already been set aside and arbitration
award dated 27-04-2024 has been passed in favour of petitioner.
FDRs deposited by the petitioner are also not being returned by the
respondents. The act of respondents of not enlisting the petitioner
company to participate in bids, is violation of right of petitioner as
enshrined in Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the
submissions and submitted that the petition preferred by the
petitioner lacks territorial jurisdiction as the contract awarded to
the petitioner was of laying over of runway at Air Force Station
Bareilly (U.P.) and work order was issued by Central Command
of Military Engineering Services at Lucknow, therefore, the
present petition at Gwalior Bench is not maintainable. Thus,
prayed for its dismissal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
6. This is a case where petitioner firm is aggrieved by the action and
inaction of respondents which are situated at Lucknow.
Admittedly, petitioner was granted the contract of laying over of
runway of Air Force Station Bareilly (U.P.) and work order was
issued by Central Command of Military Engineering Services at
Lucknow. Therefore, only on the basis of fact that work order was
received by the petitioner at Gwalior, does not entitle him to file
petition within territorial jurisdiction of this Court at Gwalior.
7. The scope of territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens has
been discussed by the Apex Court right from Navinchandra N.
Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2000) 7 SCC
640, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr.,
(2004) 6 SCC 254, Alchemist Limited and others Vs. State
Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335. Recently in the case of The
State of Goa Vs. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd.
passed in Civil Appeal No.1700/2023 vide order dated 14-03-
2023, the Apex Court given guidance in following manner:
"15. This is a case where clause (2) of Article 226has been
invoked by the High Court to clothe it with the jurisdiction
to entertain and try the writ petitions. The Constitutional
mandate of clause (2) is that the 'cause of action', referred
to therein, must at least arise in part within the territories
in relation to which the high court exercises jurisdiction
when writ powers conferred by clause (1) are proposed to
be exercised, notwithstanding that the seat of the
Government or authority or the residence of the person is
not within those territories. The expression 'cause of
action' has not been defined in the Constitution. However,
the classic definition of 'cause of action' given by Lord
Brett in Cooke vs. Gill1 that "cause of action means every
fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if
traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of
the court", has been accepted by this Court in a couple of
decisions. It is axiomatic that without a cause, there cannot
be any action. However, in the context of a writ petition,
what would constitute such 'cause of action' is the material
facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead
and prove to obtain relief as claimed. Determination of the
question as to whether the facts pleaded constitute a part of
the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article
226of the Constitution, would necessarily involve an
exercise by the high court to ascertain that the facts, as
pleaded, constitute a material, essential or integral part of
the cause of action. In so determining, it is the substance of
the matter that is relevant. It, therefore, follows that the
party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the
integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do
constitute a cause empowering the high court to decide the
dispute and that, at least, a part of the cause of action to
move the high court arose within its jurisdiction. Such
pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of
challenge based on which the prayer can be granted. Those
facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the
prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring
jurisdiction on the court. These are the guiding tests.
16. Here, tax has been levied by the Government of Goa in
respect of a business that the petitioning company is
carrying on within the territory of Goa. Such tax is payable
by the petitioning company not in respect of carrying on of
any business in the territory of Sikkim. Hence, merely
because the petitioning company has its office in Gangtok,
Sikkim, the same by itself does not form an integral part of
the cause of action authorizing the petitioning company to
move the High Court. We hold so in view of the decision of
this Court in National Textile Corporation Ltd. vs. Haribox
Swalram 2. The immediate civil or evil consequence, if at
all, arising from the impugned notification is that the
petitioning company has to pay tax @ 14% to the
Government of Goa. The liability arises for the specific
nature of business carried on by the petitioning company
within the territory of Goa. The pleadings do not reflect
that any adverse consequence of the impugned notification
has been felt within the jurisdiction of the High Court. At
this stage, we are not concerned with the differential duty
as envisaged in Schedule II [@ 6%] vis-à-vis Schedule IV
[@ 14%] of the impugned notification. That is a matter
having a bearing on the merits of the litigation. The long
and short of the matter is that the petitioning company has
to bear the liability of paying tax @ 14% levied by the
Government of Goa for selling lottery tickets in the State of
Goa under Schedule IV of the impugned notification. It
does not bear out from the petition memo how the
impugned notification levying tax for carrying on business
in the State of Goa subjects the petitioning company to a
legal wrong within the territory of Sikkim for the writ
petition to be entertained by the High Court."
8. After considering the said judgments and the fact situation, the
territorial jurisdiction lies where respondents reside or where the
cause of action arose. In the present case, construction work is to
be carried out at Bareilly (U.P.)and work order has been issued by
Central Command Lucknow. Therefore, if petitioner has any
grievance then he can certainly file petition/appropriate legal
proceedings in the jurisdiction falling under Lucknow Bench at
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view
that the petition preferred by the petitioner lacks territorial
jurisdiction, therefore, it is dismissed with aforesaid liberty.
11. Petition stands dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
Anil* JUDGE JUDGE
ANIL
KUMAR
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d06
8b51dae27e84c266b09d283f0799e67
CHAURAS cdc7df50f, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F0501
19F06F4A296DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC
IYA 7D8BD8CBCC9C2446E, cn=ANIL
KUMAR CHAURASIYA
Date: 2025.05.06 10:44:06 +05'30'
