The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens in the context of a writ petition seeking resitement of a retail outlet petrol pump allotted by the Indian Oil Corporation.

MANMOHAN, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking resitement of a retail outlet petrol pump allotted by the Indian Oil Corporation. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petrol pump initially allotted to the petitioner at Ghaziabad is still available and the same can be allocated to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4/IOC raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. He relies upon a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jagdambay Auto Station and Anr. v. UOI and Others, WP(C) 6398/2010, decided on 01November, 2012.

3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the dealership agreement was executed in Delhi and the principal office of respondent No. 4 is also in delhi.

4. But, a perusal of the judgment in Jagdambay Auto Station (supra), reveals that similar arguments were repelled in the said case.

The relevant portion of the judgment in Jagdambay Auto Station (supra) is reproduced herein-below:-

“7. The preliminary objection of Mr. Kalra is that the petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned order passed by the IOCL at Chandigarh, whereby the petitioners’ dealership has been terminated on 22.2.2010 and for restoration of the said dealership. The injunctive relief sought is also in respect of the immovable property situated in Jalandhar, Punjab. It is argued that the retail outlet in question is situated in Jalandhar. The inspection was carried out in Jalandhar; show cause notice was issued by SDRSM, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Jalandhar, and; the termination letter has been passed by the General Manager of IOCL not in Delhi. Mr. Kalra submits that the parties cannot confer jurisdiction by agreement upon a court which otherwise lacks jurisdiction. In this regard, he placed reliance on Union of India and Others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and Another, AIR 2002 SC 126. He also placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Jai Ganesh Petroleum (Writ Petition (C) No. 5133/2005), Khutar Filling Station (Writ Petition (C) No. 5167/2005) and M/s Annapurna Filling Station (Writ Petition (C) No. 16946/2004), decided by a common judgment dated 23.12.2005. He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Hilal Filling Station Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (2004) 109 DLT 410 and Phool Service Station Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2003 (71) DRJ 17. Mr. Kalra further submits that the petitioner earlier preferred a civil suit before the Court at Jalandhar claiming substantially the same relief.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Lekhi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate authority under the MGD 2005 is situated at Mumbai. However, the mere location of the appellate authority at Mumbai is not enough to vest jurisdiction in the courts at Mumbai. In this regard, he also placed reliance on Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2011 (181) DLT 658. Mr. Lekhi submits that even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a Court, the same would confer territorial jurisdiction on that Court. In this regard, he placed reliance on Alchemist Ltd. and Another Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 335. He also placed reliance on Mosaraf Hossain Khan Vs. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 658. It is argued by the petitioner that the place of inspection and the place from where show cause notice is issued-is irrelevant to decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction in the present case. The petitioners have sought to distinguish the judgments relied upon by the respondents. It is argued that the judgment in Phool Service Station (supra) is not relevant, as the grievance in that case was with regard to the method of inspection – which is not the issue raised in the p