The rejection of a bid in a specific location does not necessarily give rise to jurisdiction in another location, and other factors such as the location of the petitioner's office and the COVID-19 pandemic may not justify the court's jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

P S Dinesh Kumar, J. - Though this petition is listed for orders regarding completion of service of notices on respondents, Smt.D.N.Mamatha, learned CGC placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 711 raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction and strongly urged that writ petition is not maintainable and submitted that any further proceedings in this writ petition is uncalled for.

2. Heard Shri Nikhilesh Rao, learned advocate for the petitioner and learned CGC for the Union of India - respondent No.1.

3. Undisputed facts of the case are, the Development Commissioner of Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME), New Delhi, called tender for supply of CNC Milling Machines in February, 2019. Petitioner having its registered office and works at Bengaluru submitted its bid on 17.07.2019. The bid was opened by the Development Commissioner on 18.07.2019 at New Delhi. Petitioner was declared as "L1" in respect of machines described in lot No.3. Petitioner was declared as "L3" in respect of machines described in lot No.1. Petitioner has quoted Rs.18.69 Crores for supply of machines in lot No.3. However, the Development Officer has awarded tender on 05.06.2020 to M/s. Phillips Corporation, Hanover, Maryland, USA (respondent No.2) who has quoted higher price than the petitioner.

4. The principal objection raised by the learned CGC is that tender was called for in New Delhi. Tender bids were submitted in New Delhi and the communication rejecting petitioner's bid dated 09.06.2020 (Annexure-N) has been sent from New Delhi. Therefore, authority in the case of ONGC (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case and hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.

5. Shri Nikhilesh Rao urged following contentions;

Petitioner has its office and manufacturing unit at Bengaluru;

Bid was valid for 120 days and the Development Commissioner sought to extend the term of the bid and petitioner has consented for extension of term of the bid by E-mail on various dates from Bengaluru as per Annexures-M series ending with the last extension till 18.05.2020;

Respondent No.1 is the Union of India and therefore, in this COVID-19 situation, they ought not have raised this contention with regard to jurisdiction;

Petitioner has obtained bank guarantee from Canara Bank situated in Infantry Road, Bengaluru. With the above submissions, Shri Nikhilesh Rao submitted that part of cause of action has arisen in Bengaluru and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.

6. In support of his contentions, Shri Nikhilesh Rao placed reliance on following decisions;

(i) Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another, (2006) 6 SCC 207 ; and

(ii) M/s. P.R.Transport Agency Vs. Union of India, (2006) AIR Allahabad 23

7. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.

8. In ONGC case (supra), bid was called for by ONGC having its office at New Delhi. Respondent therein was having its office at Calcutta. The bid was rejected by ONGC, New Delhi. Writ petitioner moved Calcutta High Court. The Calcutta High Court entertained the writ petition and allowed it. ONGC challenged the same before the Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court allowed the appeal filed by the ONGC by holding thus:

"14. Before we part we must clarify that we have confined ourselves to deciding whether on the averments made in the petition any part of the cause of action is shown to have arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. Even if we had come to the conclusion that the averments disclosed that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the said Court and therefore the petition could be entertained by that Court, it would still have been open for the opposite party to dispute the said averments were not true and correct, the petition, though entertained, would fail fo