The doctrine of forum conveniens was applied to determine the maintainability of the writ petition based on the jurisdiction and alternative remedies available to the petitioner.

1. This writ petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation („PIL?) has been filed by Shri Sunil Singh, a resident of DLF Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana seeking a direction to set aside the environmental clearance dated 3rd April 2007 granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests („MOEF?), Government of India in favour of “the project DLF cyber city” and award exemplary damages and compensation to “the petitioner and residents of Gurgaon to improve environment”.

2. The facts in brief are that environmental clearance was granted by the MOEF at New Delhi in favour of DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd. having its office at DLF City Phase I, Gurgaon, Haryana for construction of a commercial complex “DLF Cyber City” in Sectors 24, 25 and 25A in Gurgaon. According to the petitioner the impugned order is in contravention of the environment impact assessment notification issued by the MOEF. It is submitted that given the precarious ground water situation in Gurgaon, no such environmental clearance could have been given. A further ground of challenge is that the mandatory procedure prescribed for environmental clearance has not been complied with.

3. Ms. Nivedita Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to first address the issue of the maintainability of this writ petition. She submitted that since the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2007 granting environmental clearance had been issued by the MOEF in New Delhi, a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. According to her although DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd. is not a party to the petition, its parent company, DLF Universal Ltd., having its registered office in New Delhi has been arrayed as respondent No.3. Further, although respondent No.2 is the Central Ground Water Board having its office at Faridabad in Haryana, the principal office of that entity is in New Delhi. She relies upon some of the judgments of this Court where, in similar circumstances, writ petitions have been entertained.

4. It cannot be disputed that since the impugned order has been passed by the MOEF in New Delhi, a part of the cause of action does arise within the jurisdiction of this Court. The amendment to Article 226(2) by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment Act), 1976 in fact expands the jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a petition even where the seat of the Government whose order is challenged before it is not within the territory of the High Court. However, the question in the instant case is one of forum conveniens. In other words, the question is whether, notwithstanding the fact that this Court has jurisdiction, it should exercise such jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

5. The above approach has been adopted by this Court in the past while declining to entertain writ petitions. For instance, this Court has dismissed, on the ground of maintainability, writ petitions challenging orders of Tribunals, having their seat in Delhi, but where the cause of action originated in a State outside Delhi. A sampling of such decisions are Bombay Snuff (P) Limited v. Union of India (2006) 194 ELT 264 (Del), Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1978) 113 ITR 817 (Del), Suraj Woolen Mills v. Collector of Customs (2000) 123 ELT 471 (Del), CCE v. Enkay HWS India Limited (2002) 139 ELT 21 (Del). A reference may also be made to the decisions of this Court in Sector Twenty One Owners Welfare Association v. Air Force Naval Housing Board 65 (1997) DLT 81 (DB) and Ela Kumar v. A.I.C.T.E. 117 (2005) DLT 371 (DB).

6. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Limited v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254 after reviewing the entire case law a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court explained the doctrine of forum conveniens as under: “30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a deter