The High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition is contingent upon the authority's location within its territorial limits, not the residence of the aggrieved party.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Petitioner filed I.A. No.01 of 2025 along with the Writ Petition. The I.A. was an application for stay duly supported by an Affidavit. The prayers in the Writ Petition were as follows;

“……………………………………………………………………………………

(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other Appropriate Writ, Order or direction thereby quashing the impugned Debarment Notice dated 30.09.2025 {Annexure P-1 (Colly)}, issued by the Respondent No.1;

(ii) Direct the Respondents to restore Status Quo Ante and refrain from giving effect to the Debarment Notice dated 30.09.2025 {Annexure P-1 (Colly)}

(iii) Pass an ad-interim order staying the order impugned Debarment Letter (sic.) dated 30/09/2025 {Annexure P-1 (Colly)}

……………………………………………………………………………………”

2. Before this Court on 13-11-2025, I.A. No.01 of 2025 was taken up for hearing. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was aggrieved by the Debarment Notice, dated 30-09-2025, issued by the National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL), Respondent No.1 against the Joint Venture (JV) comprising of M/s. Altinok Consulting Engineering Inc. (Respondent No.3) with M/s. Satra Infrastructure Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) along with MaRS Planning and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.4), which debarred the JV from participating in the pre-qualification for bidding for all future Projects to be undertaken by NHIDCL/National Highways Authority of India, (NHAI)/Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), for a period of two years. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, perusing the pleadings and documents annexed thereto and giving due consideration to the submissions, facts and circumstances involved, the Debarment Notice, dated 30-09-2025, was stayed until the next date. The next date was fixed on 05-03-2026.

3. In the interim, a Mention Memo was filed on 03-12-2025 by the Respondent No.1, seeking posting of the matter on 05-12-2025. The matter was accordingly taken up on 10-12-2025.

(i) The Respondent No.1 filed an application being I.A. No.04 of 2025 with a prayer that the stay order (supra) be vacated. The Respondent No.1 also filed I.A. No.03 of 2025 praying for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(ii) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that advance Notice for the I.A. No.01 of 2025 and the Writ Petition was not served upon the Respondent No.1 by any mode, as a consequence the Respondent No.1 was not present before this Court during the hearing on 13-11-2025. That, the Petitioner has concealed certain facts pertaining to the instant matter and are making efforts to obtain orders from different Courts in the country by filing successive Petitions on the same cause of action. In this context, it is contended that, before filing the present Petition the constituent of the Petitioner in the JV, namely M/s. Altinok Consulting Engineering Inc. (Respondent No.3), had filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, being WP(C) No.16139/2025, along with an application for stay of the same Debarment Notice, dated 30-09-2025. The matter came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 17-10-2025, however after hearing the parties no stay was granted on the said date. As the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was filed by M/s. Altinok Consulting Engineering Inc. (Respondent No.3), the leading constituent of the JV, it thereby espoused the cause of all the constituents of the JV, including that of the Petitioner herein. The fact that the parties have grossly manipulated the matter is evident from their contract as although the Petitioner herein claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order of Debarment dated 30-09-2025, it did not file any Petition till the matter filed by M/s. Altinok Consulting Engineering Inc. (Respondent No.3) before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was taken up for consideration. In the absence of any relief from the said High Court the instant ap