Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1435
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
Dr. Rahmat Ali Laskar Son Of Late- Abdul Hannan – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And 9 Ors - Respondents
WP(C) 2349 of 2024
Decided on : 12-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ALHAJJ I UDDIN, MR R HOQUE,MRS. R MOMTAZ
IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is determined by the location of the cause of action, not merely where the order was issued.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226(1) & (2) - Jurisdiction of High Courts - The petitioner sought payment for bamboo seedlings supplied under a tender issued by the Government of Maharashtra, arguing jurisdiction based on the supply order being issued in Assam. The court held that no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, emphasizing that jurisdiction is determined by where the cause of action arises, not merely where the order was issued. (Paras 9, 10, 17)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court reiterated that even a slender part of the cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction for the High Court to exercise its writ powers, and the concept of forum conveniens may prevent the exercise of discretion in certain cases. (Paras 12, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner supplied bamboo seedlings to the Government of Maharashtra under a tender but was only partially paid, leading to a writ petition for the outstanding dues.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case based on the location of the cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that jurisdiction is determined by the location of the cause of action, not merely the issuance of the supply order.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner submitted his bid in respect of the E-Tender Notice No.06/2023-2024 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Pune, Government of Maharashtra, for supply of minimum 4 months old bamboo seedlings from certified seed source in around 4”x5” size polybags.
2. No one appears for the respondents, despite notice having been issued to the respondents on 17.05.2024. The office note dated 09.09.2024 states as follows:-
“Perusal of the track consignment reports (Annexure-A to J) filed by the petitioner confirms delivery of item to respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 on 24.05.24 and to respondent No. 9 on 27.05.24. As such it can be said that service is complete for respondent Nos.1 to10.”
3. The petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s North East Nursery Seeds House, Udali Tiniali Bazar, Nagaon, Assam-782446, submitted his tender in respect of the above said E-Tender Notice for supply of bamboo seedlings to Pune, Maharashtra. The petitioner’s bid was selected. Supplies were made by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that only part payment of the supply bills have been made by the respondents.
4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that E-Tender Notice dated 17.11.2023 was issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry Division, Pune, Maharashtra for supply of 24.88 lakhs bamboo seedlings at a cost of Rs.371.74 lakhs.
5. The petitioner’s bid was declared as the successful bid and accordingly, supply order dated 17.11.2023 was issued by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner’s firm, i.e., M/s North East Nursery Seeds House, Udali Tiniali Bazar, District Nagaon, Assam.
6. The petitioner thereafter supplied the bamboo seedlings in terms of the work/supply order dated 17.11.2023, which was issued to his firm in the State of Assam. The petitioner accordingly supplied 24.88 lakhs bamboo seedlings at a cost of Rs.371.74 lakhs from Assam to Pune, Maharashtra. Though part payment of the petitioner’s bill had been made by the respondents, the petitioner is still to be paid Rs.3,51,63,722/-.
7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that a direction should be issued to the respondents to pay to the petitioner the above outstanding dues of Rs. 3,51,63,722/-.
8. On a perusal of the writ petition, it is seen that all the respondents are from the State of Maharashtra and all of them are working for the Government of Maharashtra. The E-Tender Notice was also issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Pune. The bamboo seedlings that were also supplied were also supplied to the Social Forestry Division, Pune, Maharashtra. The payment for the supplied bamboo seedlings are also to be paid by the Government of Maharashtra. The petitioner has however filed this writ petition in this Court, praying for his contractual dues, only on the ground that besides the supply having been made from the State of Assam and delivered in the State of Maharashtra, the work/supply order dated 17.11.2023 had been issued to the petitioner’s office in Assam, which was within the jurisdiction of this Court.
9. The question is whether this Court has the jurisdiction to decide the present case, when there is nothing to show that any part of the cause of action for payment of the petitioner’s bill, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
10. Article 226 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of India states as follows:-
“226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including [writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforceme
