JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ application challenging the tender notice issued by the Steel Authority of India for supply of coke breeze of 92,500 metric tons for six months at their plants at IISCO Steel Plant, Rourkela Steel Plant and Durgapur Steel Plant.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Clause 5 (2) (b) of the eligibility criteria of the said tender, the bidders should have supplied minimum 24,500 metric tons coke breeze by rail to any Central or State Government organizations/PSU/Public Limited Company over a period of any consecutive twelve months during the last five financial years and current financial year ending last day of the month prior to the month in which this tender is issued.

3. Mr. Saptangsu Basu, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the condition imposed by the Steel Authority of India for supply of coke breeze by rail is arbitrary in nature and is only to favour a particular entity and no other bidders in the entire market can participate in the said tender.

4. This application was moved before the Vacation Bench on 31st December, 2025 and this Court has passed an interim order restraining the respondent authorities for taking any decision for inviting tender till 8th January, 2026 and the Steel Authority of India is directed to file a report on the date fixed.

5. Today when the matter is called on, learned counsel appearing for the Steel Authority of India has filed a report after serving a copy to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised the issue of maintainability of the present writ application, on the ground that this Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the writ application as the Steel Authority of India has published the tender from Rourkela Steel Plant and the tender is to be concluded at Rourkela Steel Plant itself. Thus, this Court is not having jurisdiction.

7. The second point raised by the respondents is that the Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the tender document and cannot interfere with the tender process.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in support of his submissions has relied upon the judgment in the case of Oil And Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors. reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 711 and submits that in the said case also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the tender was submitted and scrutinized at New Delhi and the execution of the contract works to be carried out at Hazira in Gujarat and merely because advertisement was made at Calcutta and representation was made from Calcutta would not constitute cause of action.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents have further relied upon the judgment in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 254 and submits that in the said case also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission (supra) and held that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition it must disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause so as to empower the Court to decide the dispute and the entire or a part of it arose within its jurisdiction.

10. He submits that in the present case no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and all cause of action is in Rourkela.

11. He further relied upon the judgment in the case of Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa & Ors. reported in (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 517 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that when the power of judicial review is invoked in the matter relating to the tenders or award of contracts certain special features should be borne in the mind. But in the present case, there is no such special feature is brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner,