Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 421
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J.
M/s. Sai Parenterals Limited – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Odisha – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 25499 of 2024
Decided On : 18-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anup Koushik Karavadi.
For the Respondent: Gadi Praveen Kumar.
IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition if the cause of action arises outside its territorial limits as per the tender conditions.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Writ petition challenging the decision of the Technical and Managing Committee Meeting for debarring the petitioner company and forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit without notice – Jurisdiction of the court discussed in relation to cause of action arising in Hyderabad – Court held it lacked jurisdiction as per tender conditions stipulating jurisdiction in Odisha. (Paras 1, 10, 11)
(B) Jurisdiction – The court reiterated principles from Kusum Ingots vs. Alloys Ltd. and other precedents regarding territorial jurisdiction and cause of action. (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case: The petitioner company challenged the decision to debar it from a tender and forfeit its earnest money, claiming jurisdiction based on part of the cause of action arising in Hyderabad.
Findings of Court: The court found it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the tender conditions specified jurisdiction in Odisha.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition based on the cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that jurisdiction is determined by the location of the cause of action as stipulated in the tender conditions, thus dismissing the petition.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed praying this Court to declare the decision of the Technical and Managing Committee Meeting held on 13.08.2024 for debarring the petitioner company for a period of one year and forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit amount under e-tender, dated 07.03.2024 vide Bid Reference No. OSMCL/2024-25/DRUGS-DHSGEN-GR-I/01, issued by respondent No. 2, without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner company as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to set aside the same and to direct respondent No. 2 to consider the representation, dated 25.07.2024 submitted by the petitioner and for other appropriate reliefs.
2. It is stated that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is further stated that respondent No. 2 had issued e-tender, dated 07.03.2024 for procurement of drugs and medical consumables (Group I) for the financial year 2024- 2025 vide Bid Reference No. LSMCL/2024-25/DRUGSDHS-GEN-GR-I/01 and the petitioner has participated in the said tender and also furnished bank guarantee of Rs.50.00 lakh towards earnest money deposit. It is further stated that there are disputes between the petitioner-company and respondent No. 2 for supply of medical consumable goods and invoking the terms and conditions of the e-tender notification, respondent No. 2 has forfeited the earnest money deposited by the petitioner. Questioning the said action, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner company is situated in Hyderabad and it has furnished the bank guarantee issued by ICICI Bank, Hyderabad and the entire correspondence between the petitioner company and respondent No. 2 would reveal that part of cause of action arises at Hyderabad, as such this Court is having jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.
5. Dealing with the issue pertaining to part of cause of action and jurisdiction in Kusum Ingots vs. Alloys Ltd. (2004) 6 SCC 254, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711 as well as in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, (1985) 3 SCC 217.
6. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 207 the Supreme Court held as under:
“8. Two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution on plain reading give clear indication that the High Court can exercise power to issue direction, order or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories.
12. The expression “cause of action” has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense “cause of action” means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself.
Compendiously, as noted above, the expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in “cause of action.”
7. It would be appropriate to quote Para-61 of the said judgment, which
