The improper allocation of items without rejecting submitted tenders is unlawful; the High Court maintains jurisdiction to issue writs regardless of where the cause of action arose.

1. The facts that give rise to this petition are that the Director of Health Services issued a notice dt. 21st July, 1983 inviting tenders in respect of used X - ray plates and "wasteful hypo solution" to be sold to Small Scale Units (these being items from which silver is extracted). Six parties submitted tenders in respect thereof. However, the Government thereafter passed a Resolution dt. 3rd Aug. 1984 purporting to distribute these two items amongst three parties, namely, the petitioners (herein) and respondents 3 and 4, and also indicating the areas in which each of these parties would operate. The said resolution also stipulated that the used X - ray films would be sold at Rs. 40.50 per kilogram whilst "wasteful hypo solution" would be sold at Rs. 11.00 per litre. Being aggrieved by the said Resolution, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the said resolution and consequential reliefs. The petitioners have contended : (a) that the tenders have not been rejected and / or have otherwise not been dealt with, and the Government could not purport to pass the resolution (now impugned) distributing the items in the manner they have done, (b) that looking to the tenders filed by the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4, the rates quoted by the petitioners in respect of both the items were the highest, and the petitioners' tender ought to have been accepted and the items ought to have been given to the petitioners exclusively, and (c) that there was no methodology by which the Government allotted these items in the proportions specified in the said resolution, or allocated the areas specified in the said resolution, or as to how the respondents 3 and 4 who had quoted a lesser price, were allotted a part of the said items, and as to how they were called upon to pay "the price at which the petitioners had offered to buy the items.

2. The petition is of course resisted by respondents 1 and 2 who have contended that these items were to be sold to small - scale industries with a view to help such industries. That it is in the light of this policy that the items were allotted amongst the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4. That although the price quoted by respondents 3 and 4 in their tenders were lower than the price quoted by the petitioners, none the less respondents 1 and 2 had demanded the same price from respondents 3 and 4 as quoted by the petitioners and hence there was no loss to the Government That in the circumstances the question of quashing the said resolution did not arise. Respondent 3 has contended that although under the impugned Government resolution respondent 3 was allotted a quota less than what they would be entitled to, the question of quashing the said resolution did not arise. Respondent 4 has contended that the High Court Bench sitting at Nagpur has no jurisdiction to receive, try and hear this petition. On merits, respondent 4 has contended that since the intention of the Government in selling these items was to assist small - scale industries, the Government resolution (now impugned) fulfils the very purpose, and the petitioners would be entitled to no relief.

3. Now as regards the question whether this Court has jurisdiction to receive, try and hear this petition is concerned, it has been submitted by counsel for respondent 4 that admittedly the tender notice was issued in Bombay and the resolution (now impugned) was also passed at Bombay. That the whole cause of action had arisen in Bombay. That it was the cause of action that attracted jurisdiction, and this being so, the High Court Bench at Nagpur