Devinder Gupta, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred TO against the order passed on 21. 1. 1998 by learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant s writ petition observing:-

"it appears to me that the cause of action has substantially and materially arisen in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, this Court will not entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. "

( 2 ) THE appellant filed writ petition on 16. 8. 1996 praying that demand notice dated 27. 2. 1996 and communication dated 22. 7. 1996 issued by the U. P. State Industrial Development Corporation threatening re-entry and forfeiting the rights of the petitioner to run industrial unit be set aside.

( 3 ) THE appellant claimed that it is engaged in manufacture of industrial explosives and the company was set up in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the assisted sector with the Pradesihya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Limited and Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation. It approached the State of Uttar Pradesh for allotment of land. Respondent No. 2 decided to transfer 50 acres of land on lease and license basis besides another 656 acres in Tehsil Jhansi (U. P. ). The appellant had proposed to respondent No. 2 to set up an industrial unit at Jhansi to manufacture industrial explosives. Agreement was entered into on 17. 12. 1984. It had complied with the terms by making deposit of the amount demanded but the respondents had not communicated or Fixed yearly lease rent. It was alleged that on 22. 7. 1996 a registered letter was received intimating that the appellant had failed to make payment of the dues amounting to Rs-84,81,022. 83. According to the appellant, it had paid in full the premium called the market value and had also been representing that but for non Fixation of the Economic Rent, the respondents had no authority and power to re-enter as respondent No. 2 has not given its approval to the Economic Rent, which cannot be Fixed arbitrarily or on its own by respondent No. 1. It is alleged that the respondents were asked to Fix Economic Rent as per agreement, which they had failed, therefore, respondent No. l had got no legal authority to re-entcr in the manner as threatened in the notice. Consequently, aforementioned writ petition was Filed in this Court alleging that the impugned notice dated 27. 2. 1996 and communication dated 22. 7. 1997 containing illegal and arbitrary demand of Rs. 84,81,022. 83 and the threatening re-entry and forfeiting the rights of the petitioner to run the industrial unit was received by the petitioner at its registered office at New Delhi and as such the cause of action had accrued to the appellant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basi and whers JT 1994 (5) S. C. I and of this Court in Sector Twenty one Owners Welfare Association v. Air Force Naval Housing Board and Ors. 65 (1997) D. L. T. 81 (D. B.) declined to entertain the petition holding that cause of action had substantially and materially arisen in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that notice was received in Delhi. Notice is a part of the whole of the transaction and is an integral part of the cause of action. Infringement of the petitioner s right is on service of notice. Therefore, in view the constitutional provisions contained in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the appellant was within its right to have approached this Court for redressal of grievances as cause of action, if not wholly arose in part within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

( 5 ) ARTICLE 226 of the Constitution of India reads:-

"power of High Courts to issue certain writs:- (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document