1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.03.2017 as contained in Ref. No. EC/HQ/CMC/RJML 224.3 L. Cum/2017/172 issued under the signature of the General Manager (CMC) Eastern Coalfields Limited (respondent no. 5) whereby the second NIT vide e-Tender Notice No. ECL/HQ/CMC/RJML 224.3/L.Cum/887 dated 04.10.2016 has been cancelled and also for issuance of direction upon the respondents to award the said tender to the petitioner.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that a tender vide e-Tender Notice No. ECL/HQ/CMC/RJML 224.3 L.Cum/499 dated 25.05.2016 was floated for hiring of HEMM for removal of 224.30 L.Cum OB within RCML patch of Rajmahal OCP in Rajmahal Area. The petitioner along with others participated in the said tender wherein the petitioner was declared L2 and one M/s Starwise Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. was declared L1. The bid of M/s Starwise Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. was rejected due to submission of incomplete documents by it. Since the said work was not allotted to the petitioner despite being L2, it filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No. 5154 of 2016 which was subsequently withdrawn. The ECL again floated a tender vide e-Tender Notice No ECL/HQ/CMC/RJML 224.3 L. Cum/887 dated 04.10.2016 for the same work wherein the petitioner was declared as lowest bidder, however the work was not finalized with the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent no. 5 vide impugned order as contained in Ref. No. ECL/HQ/CMC/RJML 224.3 L. Cum/2017/172 dated 21.03.2017 cancelled the tender dated 04.10.2016 which gives rise to the filing of the present writ petition.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-ECL at the very outset raises the question regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this court in entertaining the present writ petition by referring the bid document which according to him provides the jurisdiction only to the court of Asansol since impugned order has been issued from HQ ECL. It is further submitted that the agreement has not yet been executed with the petitioner and any part of cause of action has also not arisen in the State of Jharkhand. Reliance is put to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajasthan State Electrical Board vs. Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 107 wherein it has been held as under:-

“28. In the light of the aforesaid facts of the present case, the ratio of all the aforesaid decisions which are referred to hereinbefore would squarely govern and apply to the present case also. There is indeed an ouster cause used in the aforesaid stipulations stating that the courts at Jaipur alone would have jurisdiction to try and decide the said proceedings which could be initiated for adjudication and deciding the disputes arising between the parties with or in relation to the aforesaid agreements through the process of arbitration. In other words, even though otherwise the Courts al Calcutta would have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide such disputes, but in view of the ouster clause it is only the courts at Jaipur which would have jurisdiction to entertain such proceeding.”

4. On the contrary, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of clause 25 of the E-tender Notice dated 04.10.2016 read with section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the present work confers jurisdiction to the court where the work is to be executed i.e Raj Mahal Area falling within the State of Jharkhand. It is further argued that the respondents are relying upon Clause 25 of the e-Tender Notice dated 25.05.2016 which is not related to the present dispute.

5. So far the question of jurisdiction of this Court for entertaining the present matter is concerned, I do find substance in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Clause 25 of the Instruction to the Bidders as contained in e-Tender Notice dated 04.10.2016, cancellation of