The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction clause in the agreement does not exclude the jurisdiction of the court where the cause of action partially arises.

1. The instant writ application seeks to assail a show cause notice No.NHAI/13013/547/CO/10-11/Competitive Bidding dated 18.10.2012, as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ application, whereby and where under the N.H.A.I. has proposed to terminate the contract agreement on the ground that the petitioner has submitted a false certificate of Net Worth, which tantamounts to violation of Clause 2(d) of Section II of Request for Proposal (RFP). A further direction has been sought for setting aside the fresh Tender Notification No.NHAI/13013/547/CO/11-12/Competitive Bidding dated 23.10.2012, as contained in Annexure 9 to the writ application, whereby and where under the respondents have invited fresh bids for the sites over which the petitioner is operating and has a valid and existing contract.

By way of I.A. No.3089 of 2013, the petitioner has also sought for setting aside the order dated 04.12.2012, bearing No.NHAI/13013/547/CO/11-12/Competitive Bidding, as contained in Annexure 11 to the interlocutory application, by which the NHAI has withdrawn the Letter of Award without prejudice to any other right available to NHAI.

2. The aforementioned challenge has been placed to the impugned action of the respondents stating that it has no legal sanction or authority and the respondents are not entitled to terminate the contract by invoking Clause 2 (d) of Section II of the RFP as the interpretation accorded to the said clause is wholly erroneous and unsustainable.

3. The petitioner’s further issue is that the certificate of Chartered Accountant produced by them along with the bid was not a false certificate as the ‘Net Worth’ and ‘Financial Capacity’ of the petitioner has been truly depicted in the certificate and there is no falsity or misrepresentation, so as to attract the provision of Clause 2(d) of Section II of the RFP.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the term “Net Worth” depicts the creditworthiness of an individual or the Company. In simplistic terms, according to the learned counsel, “Net Worth” is equal to Assets minus Liabilities. Therefore, to determine the “Net Worth”, the respondents are required to consider the value of the assets of the Company. The certificate produced by the petitioner takes into account the value of the lands as per the present circle rates. It is not the same as Revalued Reserve. The definition of “Net Worth” mentioned in the RFP does not permit the ascertainment of the correct and present creditworthiness of the bidders. Therefore, the calculation adopted by the respondents to hold that the “Net Worth” of the petitioner is only Rs.4.93 crores is incorrect. It has been submitted that there was no revaluation of reserves done by the Company. Its Reserve did not include any revaluation reserves. It is common knowledge that revaluation of reserves is done by Companies generally to claim depreciation thereupon. In the case of the petitioner, the main asset is land. No depreciation is claimed on land. Hence, there was no need to revalue the assets. The Chartered Accountant has only taken the prevailing circle rates while calculating the Net Worth, which is the standard practice. Merely because the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) adopts a different method of calculation, the Certificate issued, according to normal practice, will not become false or misleading.

5. Before delving deep into the issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ application, the respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the matter may proceed further only after this Court decides on the point of jurisdiction of maintainability of the Writ before this Court. It was contended by the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court at Patna for following two reasons :

(i) Clause 25 of the RFP has clearly provided that the bidding process shall be