M/S Satra Services And Solutions Pvt. ... vs National Highways And Infrastructure ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 119 Sikkim

Sikkim High Court

M/S Satra Services And Solutions Pvt. ... vs National Highways And Infrastructure ... on 12 December, 2025

Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai

Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai

             THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
                               (Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   WP(C) No.71 of 2025
                Petitioner               :       M/s Satra Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

                                                                          versus

                Respondents              :       National Highways and Infrastructure
                                                 Development Co. Ltd. (NHIDCL) and Others

  Application under Articles 226 and 227of the Constitution of India
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Appearance
              Mr. Uma Shanker Sarda and Mr. Adarsh Gurung, Advocates for the
              Petitioner.
              Mr. Avneesh Garg, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Rathi and Mr. Lekden
              Thondup Basi, Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
              None present for the Respondents No.2, 3 and 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Date of hearing                                   :        10-12-2025
                        Judgment reserved                                 :        10-12-2025
                        Judgment pronounced & uploaded                    :        12-12-2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Petitioner filed I.A. No.01 of 2025 along with the

Writ Petition. The I.A. was an application for stay duly supported

by an Affidavit. The prayers in the Writ Petition were as follows;

"................................................................................................

(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other Appropriate Writ, Order or direction thereby quashing the impugned Debarment Notice dated 30.09.2025 {Annexure P-1 (Colly)}, issued by the Respondent No.1;

(ii) Direct the Respondents to restore Status Quo Ante and refrain from giving effect to the Debarment Notice dated 30.09.2025 {Annexure P-1 (Colly)};

(iii) Pass an ad-interim order staying the order impugned Debarment Letter (sic.) dated 30/09/2025 {Annexure P-1 (Colly)}.

................................................................................................"

2. Before this Court on 13-11-2025, I.A. No.01 of 2025

was taken up for hearing. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted

that the Petitioner was aggrieved by the Debarment Notice, dated

M/s Satra Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. NHIDCL and Others 2

30-09-2025, issued by the National Highways & Infrastructure

Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL), Respondent No.1

against the Joint Venture (JV) comprising of M/s. Altinok Consulting

Engineering Inc. (Respondent No.3) with M/s. Satra Infrastructure

Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) along with MaRS

Planning and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.4),

which debarred the JV from participating in the pre-qualification for

bidding for all future Projects to be undertaken by NHIDCL/National

Highways Authority of India, (NHAI)/Ministry of Road Transport

and Highways (MoRTH), for a period of two years. After hearing the

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, perusing the pleadings and

documents annexed thereto and giving due consideration to the

submissions, facts and circumstances involved, the Debarment

Notice, dated 30-09-2025, was stayed until the next date. The

next date was fixed on 05-03-2026.

3. In the interim, a Mention Memo was filed on 03-12-

2025 by the Respondent No.1, seeking posting of the matter on

05-12-2025. The matter was accordingly taken up on 10-12-2025.

(i) The Respondent No.1 filed an application being I.A.

No.04 of 2025 with a prayer that the stay order (supra) be

vacated. The Respondent No.1 also filed I.A. No.03 of 2025 praying

for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(ii) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted

that advance Notice for the I.A. No.01 of 2025 and the Writ

Petition was not served upon the Respondent No.1 by any mode,

as a consequence the Respondent No.1 was not present before this

Court during the hearing on 13-11-2025. That, the Petitioner has

concealed certain facts pertaining to the instant matter and are

making efforts to obtain orders from different Courts in the country

M/s Satra Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. NHIDCL and Others 3

by filing successive Petitions on the same cause of action. In this

context, it is contended that, before filing the present Petition the

constituent of the Petitioner in the JV, namely M/s. Altinok

Consulting Engineering Inc. (Respondent No.3), had filed a Writ

Petition before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, being WP(C)

No.16139/2025, along with an application for stay of the same

Debarment Notice, dated 30-09-2025. The matter came up for

hearing before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court on 17-10-2025,

however after hearing the parties no stay was granted on the said

date. As the Writ Petition before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court was

filed by M/s. Altinok Consulting Engineering Inc. (Respondent

No.3), the leading constituent of the JV, it thereby espoused the

cause of all the constituents of the JV, including that of the

Petitioner herein. The fact that the parties have grossly

manipulated the matter is evident from their contract as although

the Petitioner herein claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order

of Debarment dated 30-09-2025, it did not file any Petition till the

matter filed by M/s. Altinok Consulting Engineering Inc.

(Respondent No.3) before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court was taken

up for consideration. In the absence of any relief from the said

High Court the instant application was moved. It was next urged

that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to determine

this matter as the headquarters of the Respondent No.1 are situate

in Delhi from where the impugned Debarment Notice was issued.

The Petitioner as evident has approached this Court with unclean

hands by way of concealment and manipulation, and is therefore

liable to be non-suited. That, the allegation of non-service of e-

mail on the Petitioner before the issuance of the Debarment Notice

is erroneous as the e-mail was issued to the JV and thereby duly

M/s Satra Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. NHIDCL and Others 4

served on all its constituents. The lead partner M/s. Altinok

Consulting Engineering Inc. (Respondent No.3), responded to the

show-cause Notice dated 07-01-2025 issued by e-mail after which

hearing was also afforded to the party. It was further urged that,

the Petitioner cannot now, before this Court, claim to be a separate

entity from the JV. The documents dated 21-02-2025 and 21-07-

2025 submitted by the JV to the Respondent No.1 reveal that it is

M/s. Altinok Consulting Engineering Inc. (Respondent No.3) which

shall be the lead constituent of the JV and shall represent the said

JV. That, it is clear that the submissions in the Petition are not

only devoid of merit but is an audacious abuse of the process of

law by the Petitioner to obtain otherwise unwarranted interim

Orders. Hence, the prayers for dismissing the instant Writ Petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the

facts as previously stated before this Court contended that, the

website of the Respondent No.1 reflects its e-mail id, to which the

advance Notice was issued by the Petitioner, before the matter was

taken up for hearing by this Court on 13-11-2025. That, the order

of Debarment severely prejudices the Petitioner as it is not allowed

to bid for contracts either as a part of the JV or even individually as

a company. That, the matter before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court

has been filed by M/s. Altinok Consulting Engineering Inc.

(Respondent No.3) in their individual capacity and not as a

constituent of the JV, therefore it has no relation to the Petition

filed by the Petitioner herein, who has also filed the Writ Petition in

an individual capacity, hence the prayer to reject the I.As (supra).

5. I have given due consideration to the submissions

advanced by Learned Counsel for the parties, perused the

pleadings and documents. While addressing the question of

M/s Satra Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. NHIDCL and Others 5

service of e-mail to the Respondents before the hearing on the

matter was taken up by this Court, admittedly the e-mail id of the

Respondent No.1 is reflected in its website. It is not denied that

the e-mail was forwarded to the said address of the Respondent

No.1. In this context, no fault therefore can be found with the

steps taken by the Petitioner.

(i) On the question of the jurisdiction of this Court, it

would be essential to notice that with regard to territorial

jurisdiction, initially, the power could be exercised by the High

Court "throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises

jurisdiction" i.e., the writs issued by the Court could not run

beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. Secondly, the

person or the authority to whom the High Court is empowered to

issue such writs must be "within those territories", which clearly

implied that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by

residence or location within those territories. In Election

Commission, India vs. Saka Venkata Rao , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

made the following observation;

"[6] ....................................................... the makers of the Constitution, having decided to provide for certain basic safeguards for the people in the new set up, which they called fundamental rights, evidently thought it necessary to provide also a quick and inexpensive remedy for the enforcement of such rights and, finding that the prerogative writs, which the Courts in England had developed and used whenever urgent necessity demanded immediate and decisive interposition, were peculiarly suited for the purpose, they conferred, in the States' sphere, new and wide powers on the High Courts of issuing directions, orders, or writs primarily for the enforcement of fundamental rights, the power to issue such directions, etc. „for any other purpose‟ being also included with a view apparently to place all the High Courts in this country in somewhat the same position as the Court of King's Bench in England. But wide as were the powers thus conferred, a twofold limitation was placed upon their exercise. In the first place, the power is to be exercised 'throughout the

AIR 1953 SC 210

M/s Satra Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. NHIDCL and Others 6

territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction', that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. Secondly, the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be 'within those territories', which clearly implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories."

[7] ............................................................................ [8] ............ The rule that cause of action attracts jurisdiction in suits is based on statutory enactment and cannot apply to writs issuable under Article 226 which makes no reference to any cause of action or where it arises but insists on the presence of the person or authority „within the territories‟ in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction."

[emphasis supplied]

(ii) In Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh vs. Union of India and Another2 a

Bench of Seven Judges was called upon to consider the correctness

or otherwise of Saka Venkata Rao (supra). The Bench approved the

view taken by the Court earlier with the observation that;

"(13) ................................ It seems to us therefore that it is not permissible to read in Article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court. That jurisdiction depends on the person or authority passing the order being within those territories and the residence or location of the person affected can have no relevance on the question of the High Court's jurisdiction."

Thus, prior to the insertion of Clause (2) to Article 226 of the

Constitution, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the writs do not

run beyond the territory in relation to which each High Court

exercise jurisdiction.

(iii) Clause (2) was inserted in Article 226 of the

Constitution by the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act. The results

of the insertion of the said Clause is that a Petition under Article

226 can be presented before any of the High Courts coming under

following heads;

(a) The High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the person or authority against whom relief is sought resides or is situate.

AIR 1961 SC 532

M/s Satra Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. NHIDCL and Others 7

This means in case of Government of India and other authorities and inferior tribunals situated at Delhi, the High Court may issue a writ against the Union of India irrespective of where the cause of action arises.

(b) The High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action in respect of which relief is sought under Article 226 has arisen, wholly or in part.

(iv) In Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and

Another , the Supreme Court held that, although in view of Section

141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter the "CPC"),

the provisions of Section 20(c) of the CPC would not apply to Writ

proceedings, however, the phraseology used in Section 20(c) of the

CPC and Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, being in pari

materia, the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered on

interpretation of Section 20(c) of the CPC, shall apply to the Writ

proceedings also. That, keeping in view the expressions used in

Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, indisputably even if a

small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of

the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. That,

although cause of action has not been defined in any statute, but

judicially interpreted would, inter alia, mean every fact which

would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order

to support his right to the Judgment of the Court.

(v) More recently, in S. Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd.4 the

Supreme Court held as follows;

"8. A body, public or private, should not be categorized as "amenable" or "not amenable" to writ jurisdiction. The most important and vital consideration should be the "function" test as regards the maintainability of a writ application. If a public duty or public function is involved, any body, public or private, concerned or connection with that duty or function, and limited to that, would be subject to

(2004) 6 SCC 254

2025 SCC OnLine SC 177

M/s Satra Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. NHIDCL and Others 8

judicial scrutiny under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

6. On the anvil of the tests laid above, it is evident that

no cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this High Court,

although the road being constructed is in the State of Sikkim, but

the aggrievement pertains categorically to the Debarment Notice

issued by the Respondent No.1, whose head office is situate at

Delhi. It is undisputed that the Respondent No.1 is a Public Sector

Undertaking under the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,

Government of India. In my considered view, the Respondent No.1

being a Public Sector Undertaking, cannot be brought within the

ambit of the meaning of the Government of India, hence this Court

lacks the jurisdiction to consider the matter.

7. That having been settled, on a juxtaposition of the Writ

Petitions filed before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court and before this

Court, undoubtedly the Petitioner before this Court is M/s. Satra

Infrastructure Management Services Pvt. Ltd., whereas before the

Hon‟ble Delhi High Court the Petitioner is M/s. Altinok Consulting

Engineering Inc. (Respondent No.3), nonetheless the contract

Agreement issued is between NHIDCL (Respondent No.1) and M/s.

Altinok Consulting Engineering Inc. JV (Respondent No.3), with

M/s. Satra Infrastructure Management Services Pvt. Ltd., in

association with MaRS Planning and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.

(Respondent No.4). The fact that it is a JV between the three

companies (supra) is not in dispute, therefore, the plea that this

Petition is related solely to the Petitioner and the other before the

Hon‟ble Delhi High Court pertains only to M/s. Altinok Consulting

Engineering Inc. (Respondent No.3), cannot be countenanced.

M/s Satra Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. NHIDCL and Others 9

(i) The prayers in the Writ Petition before the Hon‟ble

Delhi High Court are as follows;

"................................................................................................

(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other Appropriate Writ, Order or direction thereby quashing the impugned Debarment Letter dated 30.09.2025, Termination Letter dated 03.10.2025 and Letter dated 06.10.2025 issued by the Respondent No.1;

(ii) Direct the Respondents to restore Status Quo Ante and refrain from giving effect to the impugned Debarment Letter dated 30.09.2025, Termination Letter dated 03.10.2025 and Letter dated 06.10.2025 and to desist from encashing or otherwise invoking the Performance Bank Guarantee submitted by the Petitioners;

(iii) Pass any other and further orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of Justice.

................................................................................................"

(ii) These are exact the same prayers made before this

Court in the Writ Petition and which have been extracted (supra).

In fact, as evident the prayers before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court

are more elaborate.

8. Consequently, in view of the foregoing discussions, this

is a fit case in which the stay is required to be and is accordingly

vacated and for the self same reasons the Writ Petition is dismissed

and disposed of.

9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

( Meenakshi Madan Rai ) Judge 12-12-2025

Approved for reporting : Yes

sdl