BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice dated 30. 4. 2001 issued by the Respondent No. 1 (Assistant Collector, Grade-I, Room No. 5, Office of the Deputy Commissioner (South), Abdul Hamid Marg (M. B. Road), Saket, New Delhi ). The petitioners have also, inter alia, sought the issuance of an appropriate writ against the respondents preventing them from taking any coercive action against the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid recovery notice dated 30. 4. 2001.

( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 took a loan from Respondent No. 3 (M/s Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U. P. Ltd.) - (hereinafter referred to as PICUP ). The petitioners 2 and 3 are the guarantors to the said loan taken by the petitioner No. 1 from PICUP. The petitioner No. 1 s registered office is at Delhi and the petitioners 2 and 3 also reside in Delhi. PICUP, however, does not have any office in Delhi.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel on behalf of PICUP submitted that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition and, as such, this question be disposed of as a preliminary question before the case on merits is examined. It is in this context that arguments were heard on the question of territorial jurisdiction and the same are being disposed of by this judgment.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Neeraj Kaul, the learned senior counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioners, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition in view of the facts that (a) the loan agreement dated 11. 4. 1986 did not contain any clause whereby the jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi had been ousted and (b) the impugned recovery notice dated 30. 4. 2001 had been issued by respondent No. 1 in Delhi. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of PICUP submitted that the loan agreement was entered into in Lucknow. The stamp papers were purchased in Uttar Pradesh. The plant in respect of which the loan was taken by the petitioner No. 1 is situated in Surajpur, Dadri, Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The schedule of disbursement also indicates that the disbursement of the loan by PICUP was also from Lucknow. The registered office of PICUP was at Lucknow and Clause 57 of the Loan Agreement specifically provided that for all purposes of litigation relating to the agreement, the jurisdiction would be of the Lucknow Courts. In so far as the question of the impugned recovery notice having been issued by the respondent no. 1 at Delhi was concerned, he submitted that this was merely a ministerial act and could not be the subject matter of a writ of certiorari. All other reliefs were in respect of events or deeds which took place outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court. As such, he submitted that this Court would have no territorial jurisdiction and if the petitioners were aggrieved they ought to go before the High Court Bench at Lucknow which would be the proper forum for adjudication of the disputes raised in this petition.

( 5 ) SO, the two questions which require consideration are :-

(1) does clause 57 of the loan agreement in question exclude the jurisdiction of courts other than the Lucknow courts?

(2) if no, does the the mere issuance of the impugned recovery notice at Delhi clothe this court with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition?

( 6 ) LET me examine the first question. For this purpose, it would be necessary to set out clause 57 of the loan agreement which reads as under:-

" (57) Jurisdiction for litigation: the Borrower and PICUP agree that for all purposes of litigation relating to this agreement the jurisdiction shall be of Lucknow Courts. "mr. Kaul submitted that Clause 57 did not expressly oust the jurisdiction of other courts. According to him, if the last word in the clause had been "only", "alone" or "exclusively" or the like, then alone could it be said th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document